Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang.

In the new formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the universe may have no beginning at all.

“Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite,” said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

more…

Seem to remember from the 50s or 60s “the continuous creation of matter”, was it Fred Hoyle wot said this?

bob(from black rock) said:

Seem to remember from the 50s or 60s “the continuous creation of matter”, was it Fred Hoyle wot said this?

Yes, Steady State theory, which no longer has any supporters since it’s so obviously at odds with lots of evidence.

The work in the OP is interesting, but I doubt that many cosmologists these days seriously think the BB was the “beginning of the universe” in an ultimate sense. Just the beginning of this historical phase.

Bubblecar said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Seem to remember from the 50s or 60s “the continuous creation of matter”, was it Fred Hoyle wot said this?

Yes, Steady State theory, which no longer has any supporters since it’s so obviously at odds with lots of evidence.

Well Mr Carr, it still has me as a supporter, as it seems to be more likely than the BB.

bob(from black rock) said:

Bubblecar said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Seem to remember from the 50s or 60s “the continuous creation of matter”, was it Fred Hoyle wot said this?

Yes, Steady State theory, which no longer has any supporters since it’s so obviously at odds with lots of evidence.

Well Mr Carr, it still has me as a supporter, as it seems to be more likely than the BB.

Though on second thoughts, why not multiple “Big Bangs” spread out over the infinity of both time and space?

bob(from black rock) said:

Bubblecar said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Seem to remember from the 50s or 60s “the continuous creation of matter”, was it Fred Hoyle wot said this?

Yes, Steady State theory, which no longer has any supporters since it’s so obviously at odds with lots of evidence.

Well Mr Carr, it still has me as a supporter, as it seems to be more likely than the BB.

BB is a functonal model to study baryogenesis through. It might take considering other ideass just to find optional ideas to how DM works.

bob(from black rock) said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Bubblecar said:

Yes, Steady State theory, which no longer has any supporters since it’s so obviously at odds with lots of evidence.

Well Mr Carr, it still has me as a supporter, as it seems to be more likely than the BB.

Though on second thoughts, why not multiple “Big Bangs” spread out over the infinity of both time and space?

Cyclic?

bob(from black rock) said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Bubblecar said:

Yes, Steady State theory, which no longer has any supporters since it’s so obviously at odds with lots of evidence.

Well Mr Carr, it still has me as a supporter, as it seems to be more likely than the BB.

Though on second thoughts, why not multiple “Big Bangs” spread out over the infinity of both time and space?

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Multiverse

I’d be surprised if the universe had any real beginning, but our ability to trace its long-term history in detail may well remain restricted to the post-BB epoch.

I think the Big bang is another state of matter

CrazyNeutrino said:

I think the Big bang is another state of matter

It is a different energy equilibrium to the one we observe. Not sure that would classify as a different state of matter.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I think the Big bang is another state of matter

That’s a pissabolity.

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I think the Big bang is another state of matter

It is a different energy equilibrium to the one we observe. Not sure that would classify as a different state of matter.

ie: if matter hasn’t formed etc.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I think the Big bang is another state of matter

It is a different energy equilibrium to the one we observe. Not sure that would classify as a different state of matter.

ie: if matter hasn’t formed etc.

If time didn’t exist until the BB then, yes, there was no time at which the Universe didn’t exist.

Tamb said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

It is a different energy equilibrium to the one we observe. Not sure that would classify as a different state of matter.

ie: if matter hasn’t formed etc.

If time didn’t exist until the BB then, yes, there was no time at which the Universe didn’t exist.

I know what you did there.

> “Bohmian mechanics. In it, a hidden variable governs the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles.”

From wikipedia “The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot-wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, the Bohm or Bohm’s interpretation, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum theory. In addition to a wavefunction on the space of all possible configurations, it also postulates an actual configuration that exists even when unobserved.”

In other words, all this is based on a “hidden variable” form of quantum mechanics that has been disproved many times by experiments with Bell’s inequality.

How would inflation work if the universe had no beginning ?

Cymek said:

How would inflation work if the universe had no beginning ?

The Universe began when time began. i.e. at the BB.

inflation happened some time after t=0, so it would stay. it explains the Horizon Problem