Science Forums

# Big Bang(s)

## Recommended Posts

Big Bangs - A theory or a misconception

I read and drowned in my ideas after reading the recent theory given by Neil Turok. I thought, what shortcomings it has or it will pose better answers for today's mysteries and thus I got to a conclusion after 7 days of research. How it can effect these objects and phenomenon.

Acc. to this concept, several big bangs, I will call it MBB happened in the universe, but they can't happen simultaneously, some of them might might have banged after and before 13.7 bill. limit, thus Mean time of explosions can be taken as 13.7 bill.yrs.

Expansion rate-

A plump solitary big bang can cause everlasting expansion that the MBB can't do. Since matter in universe in both the concepts is the same therefore we can say MBB might not have produced much expansion rate many expansions of different big bangs might have collided with one another further deteriorating acceleration.

Gamma Ray Bursts-

Now one big bang have much larger space for expansion in comparison with little ones. Now GRB's are known to be caused by primordial black holes i.e. Hypernovae in primordial nebulae. Now the question rises that which of these theories favour the existence of GRB's.

Now a solitary one have more mass, more matter, more speed thus you can't get superdense nebulae in one sight. But MBB accounts for less mass ,less speed and there it poses a possibility of such supermassive bodies.

Supermassive objects-

Clumps of hundred of galaxies formed by gravitational pull and collisions between objects of different big bangs can also solve the mystery of bodies like Quasars giving it a totally new concept.

Shape of Galaxies-

Abundance of elliptical and spiral galaxies shows that these creations can't be made by random explosions.

Size of Galaxies-

Size of galaxies can also pose to be strong favourer as MBB should have a large number of supermassive bodies (explained above)

Shape of the Universe-

The density is more than the critical density in such a case. Thus the shape of universe would be like one described in the case of density more than critical density.

Light Distortion--

The distortion or space time warp is more in case of MBB. Thus distortion is to such an extent that we aren't able to see objects beyond 12 bill. Light yrs., but we are able to see those objects with some less distortion and thus here is shortcoming of this concept.

Dark Matter-

The proportion of dark matter is much more in case of MBB due to abundance of massive objects. Thus in such types of universe Dark Matter (present in halo around galaxies) will be dominant force in the universe to such an extent that each galaxy will develop its black hole as soon as it can.

This is a personal opinion and a private one.

##### Share on other sites

I took the liberty to clean up your text slightly as I found the font size and bold type a bit difficult to read.

thus Mean time of explosions can be taken as 13.7 bill.yrs.

I don't understand how you get to this conclusion. Since this is somewhat important to the entire purpose of the theory of MBB's, could you please elaborate on this point?

##### Share on other sites
• 5 years later...

Big Bangs - A theory or a misconception: If there can be one big bang, there can be others but how would you know about them?

If any had happened after 13.7 billion years ago within our Universe, we would know about it.

Expansion rate- MBB's would have caused contradictions, like say the Dark Flow. And yes where they collide, there would be a slow down of expansion as dark energy meets dark energy.

While the furthest GRB we have seen is 13.2 billion light years away, the nearest found in 2004 was just several million light years away so while maybe a hypervova, not a primal black hole.

Supermassive objects- Yes, there are walls of hundreds of millions of galaxies, which is a serious problem for the BB.

Shape of Galaxies- All massive objects spin in space. Even some asteroids, so why should a galaxy not spin?

Size of Galaxies- It has been shown that big galaxies grow from collisions of smaller galaxies.

Shape of the Universe- The Universe itself is possibly spherical, and spins. Light being as slow as it is, we can only see a set amount of it and we do not know what is beyond that.

Light Distortion-- The further away photons come from, the more redshifted they are so maybe at some IR photons are shifted into the microwave part of the spectrum (both spectrums overlap).

Dark Matter- If DM indeed existed as a halo around galaxies, then they would not be shaped as they are now as light matter goes where the gravity is, and DM is said to hugely out mass LM.

##### Share on other sites
• 4 months later...

Well, I've enjoyed reading the philosophy behind all this. I have often wondered whether there are other big bangs...

..What I can say, is that I don't believe there are any other universes - there should only be one universe by definition - maybe Penrose is closest to the truth - the universe expands, then time disappears from the universe because eventually there will be no moving clocks... then what happens? It all starts all over again.

##### Share on other sites

I should say more specifically, this is Penroses Cyclic Universe theory. It has a lot of merit when one considers the geometrogenesis theory of Wheeler.

##### Share on other sites

I am torn on these theories... The universe is already so big it blows the human mind on size alone, not including the mysteries we have not even begun to understand. But there is the thought of why is it here... Why is there a universe... Is that all there is? Is there something bigger? Something bigger, which our universe is inside of? Its already so damn big its ridiculous why not have something bigger? Say if we could go to the edge of the universe... Is there a wall? Do you just appear on the opposite side you approched? Or is there another exterior space with more mysteries waiting to be discovered? You cant have something without nothing... Or can you?

And by torn i mean i want to believe in the bb... Its the best idea we have right now... But i also want to believe in the mbb... It just seems to odd to have nothing past it... Theres gotta be more...

##### Share on other sites

There is no boundary to the universe, but if there was, it would most likely have a structure similar to a black hole.

##### Share on other sites

What makes that theory possible, is if someone in a black hole was to measure the density of the object, it wouldn't seem very sense at all - a black hole only looks like a very dense object from outside it's own horizon.

##### Share on other sites

In fact, just for some fun, if I have some time I will work out what the escape velocity would be for a universe if... Let's say we set it's observable radius equal to the Schwarzschild Radius. May reveal nothing, may reveal something to think about.

##### Share on other sites

That would be very interesting read... Looking forward to it :)

##### Share on other sites

Just for fun...

Set the observable universe equal to the Schwarzschild radius. That is

$r_s = 47,000,000,000$ light years

or $47 \times 10^{9}$. We know that by the physical equations of a black hole system, the escape velocity must exceed the speed of light.

This means that a speed greater than $47 \times 10^{9}$ times that of light would be required if we assume we are bradyonic systems, then this cannot be allowed in relativity unless we had some exotic energy of some kind. If we where looking through the eyes of a tachyonic particle, then the escape velocity would mean this tachyon would need to move $47 \times 10^{9}$ times faster than a particle of radiation just to escape the universe.

The escape velocity is simply the speed at which the kinetic energy and the gravitational potential of the object in question is zero.

So we may have some insight into some dynamics.

$E = h f$

is the kinetic energy of a photon. The wavelength of a photon is

$\lambda = \frac{c}{f}$

substituting we find that the kinetic energy of single unit of radiation may vary depending on the frequency

$E = \frac{hc}{\lambda}$

The escape velocity is

$v_e = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{r_s}}$

Where the gravitational constant has a value of $6.67 \times 10^{-11}m^3kg^{-1}s^{-2}$

We have determined that the tachyons speed will need to be $47 \times 10^{9}$ times the speed of light, thus the kinetic energy of a photon is

$E_k = \frac{hc}{\lambda}$

Let's have a set value for the wavelength, let it be 700 nm. We shall convert the wavelength into meters, which gives the kinetic energy of a photon as

$E_k = 2.84 \times 10^{-19} J$

Just from this one single particle, one can conclude then that the kinetic energy of photon would be insufficient, naturally since

$E_k + \phi \ne 0$

since the escape velocity is not the speed of light, but some larger then the speed of light $c<v$.

The rest can be done simply then, by changing the Schwarzschild radius for the observable universe

$v_e = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{47 \times 10^{9}}}$

But is it simple yet? First we need to work out the mass of the universe - even I don't know this answer, so I had to do a little research.

Going with Hopkins value, the mass of the observable universe is about $3 \times 10^{50} kg$, I'd assume the factor of $3$ here arises to account for the three dimensions of space, but it is not mentioned (1).

So your escape velocity would look something like

$v_e = \sqrt{\frac{6.67 \cdot 10^{-11}m^3kg^{-1}s^{-2} \times 3 \cdot 10^{50} kg}{47 \times 10^{9}}}$

If anyone had a calculator ready... you can work it out easily :) I haven't done it yet... it will be interesting to see how much of that escape velocity matches the idea that something would need to travel faster than light by a magnitude of $47 \times 10^{9}$?

There may indeed arise in some conflicting data.

Edited by Aethelwulf
##### Share on other sites

Sorry, just need to fix a few equations..

##### Share on other sites

Let's ask a question.. why would a tachyon need to have a speed $47 \times 10^{9}$ times the speed of light?

The answer is because our universe is not static and by all means, is accelerating faster than light, so if we could have a particle which could traverse that entire radius in no time at all, then it would conceivable it would be able to leave the universe horizon, if it indeed had one.

##### Share on other sites

Oops... I forgot my reference

(1) Hopkins, Jeanne. "Universe." Glossary of Astronomy and Astrophysics. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1980: 183.

##### Share on other sites

I have no clue what i am doing but this is the answer i got... Its probably wrong lol

4.2574468e+47

Forgot to square root it lol

7.65329604126

Now that must be wrong lol

Re did it again as a single entry instead of stages... Man i feel stupid lol its probably still wrong...

6.5249113e+23

Edited by Chewbalka
##### Share on other sites

I really don't have a scientific calculator handy, though I am sure those who are good at large number arithmatic (not me) could work it out simply.

##### Share on other sites

Anyway, there are some very peculiar reasons one might think we live in a black hole. Current mainstream now admits that the universe is somehow ... loosing energy. This goes against everything we once believed in that information is not lost in a universe - if information is lost, then how can it be a universe? Rather it would act similar to a thermodynamic system - a system giving up energy through Unruh-Hawking Radiation.

(I'll find links tomorrow for what I speak about if anyone is interested). What is perhaps also interesting is that as the universe expands, more matter and energy is released into the vacuum - this has been a well-known fact since the theory of general relativity. Just like a black hole, it can suck in matter, so matter will appear in our universe in very similar ways as it expands.

So there indeed many similarities to our universe and theory that we are living inside ''one of the horizons'' of a black hole, where space and time have shifted to their usual coordinate natures. Time for instance, would no longer be spacelike, nor space timelike. We live inside an inner horizon where the laws of physics have twisted back on itself like one would expect without all the gravitational interference. There are also possible ways I have considered how to explain the disappearing energy in terms of global time. Global Time doesn't exist in relativity, and when one wants to conserve the energy of system, one must use Noether's theorem to explain the symmetries of changes. However, the conjugate variable to energy in Noether's theorem is in fact time itself, so if a global time does not exist as we are often told in GR, then this may explain why energy is not conserved in general for our ''universe/black hole.''

Edited by Aethelwulf

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.