Just about everybody has heard of the Big Bang. It is probably the concept that common people are most skeptical about besides time travel. How do we know that the universe started at a Big Bang? Are we assuming too much?
Thanks to Edwin Hubble, we have discovered that just about all galaxies are moving away from us, which is where the big bang came from. If everything is moving away, then everything had to be closer before. Not only are they moving away, but their speeds are proportional to their distances from the Earth. In other words, the moving away is not random, but has some sort of correlation.
We can also detect old radioactivity from when the universe was hotter. That means the universe used to have a much higher temperature, as it should if it used to be just the big bang singularity, or the point in which everything existed.
Many scientists believe this information is enough to say that the Big Bang theory is the most likely event that started off our universe. Does that make it true? Not necessarily. I think just about every scientist has assumed that the Big Bang exists and has formed many other assumptions off of it. What if it didn't actually happen?
What if in actuality, we were recently spewed out of a white hole? We were sucked into a black hole long ago along with many other galaxies and have recently popped out in some other area. The radioactivity of extreme heat is coming from inside the white hole because of all the energy that exists there. The galaxies are all moving away from the white hole at a similar rate because they all came out of the same white hole. How do you disprove this theory?
In fact, the previously stated could go in hand with the Ultimate Black Hole theorem. If all of the black holes eventually merged and sucked everything into it, and it all came out of a white hole in either a different universe or in a different part of nothing, how can this be disproved? The old black hole would finally suck itself in and the entire universe would have basically moved! The white hole would eventually dissipate when there is nothing more to spew, and the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Mass would not be violated!
Of course the Big Bang Theory is more easily fathomable because it provides an explanation for how the universe began, whereas white holes continuously moving the universe provides no explanation for the beginning. It instead destroys just about all chances of finding the way the universe began, and also makes it seem quite possible for the existence of our universe to never end.
I am not saying that I know better than the entire Astrophysicist community and the Big Bang is completely wrong. In fact, the theory that I just put together could go in hand with the Big Bang. After all, if the universe must begin, why not let it have a big bang, then Ultimate Black Hole theorem seemingly ends the universe, but it actually just moves it somewhere else by popping it out of a white hole, and so the universe is reborn, possibly following a cycle of moving forever. The point is that we don't really know that the Big Bang is true. Or do we? Is there more evidence that I am missing? Comment with your ideas. You can stick up for the Big Bang, or totally rip it apart. I don't care what side you are on, as long as you take one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Did you watch that show at 9:00 and the other at 10:00 last night, Dan?
ReplyDeletehaha
It was about black holes and alternitives for the Big bang. Your theory wasn't on there but it works, Except I don't believe wormholes can transport material.
Also, similar to yours the big bang theory doesn't actually prove that there was a beginning. It only proves one begining, there might have been time and space and big bangs and crunches before then.
I also think that it doesn't have to completely crunch, it could just revolve around the black hole and shoot back out. too, that would explain universes within universes that you don't like. it is actually the same universe just recycling in revolution. finally the material could keep going and find the black hole in a nearby universe, until it shoots off from there.
Wow, that's ironic. No, I did not see those. What other alternatives were there? I am curious to know.
ReplyDeleteWormholes could since the big bang was also supposedly a singularity transport stuff. Maybe.
When talking about multiple big bangs and crunches then that could show that it does not prove a beginning, but most scientists believe there was only one, and only will be one.
If the universe does not completely crunch, then it can't have a big bang again, therefore causing contradiction in your comment. Therefore you have two theories in your comment. However, it does help show that there are a few different alternatives to the big bang.
Well the main one was that was on the show was that we are in a universe with parellel universes around us. the 2 bump into each other and hence a big bang, the excess heat in our universe is then from their universe and we trade back and forth. It also said that for this to be possible there would be 11 demensions and string theory would be used. they only named one ofthe 11 and that is branes (membranes) as they tighten and loosen through time. It is tightest at the coldest point.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with this theory because it implied that there was a definate boundary to our universe. Also it doesn't work with out string theory, which with the help from Mr. Lindberg, is looking very unpromising. there was one article that basically said it was a joke with no evidence to back it up,and another implied that it was basically formed so that people can consider the universe and big bang without being athiest.
the first show about black holes was basically explaining that energy was coming out of black holes as matter went in, that had it not be black but a violet color, that was extremely hard to detect. It had a name for this but I forget the second word "Hawking's ..." and explained about LoCo I (Information) and how they contradict each other even though by what I saw they made perfect sence and no Information was lost. The energy from the matter left while the mass stayed. The information was seperated but still existant.
That contradicts your theory just in where the energy goes, and matter, but being that that is just speculation as there were other options that I didn't mention, they involve string theory, yours could be right.
Also your theory would make more sense if the material was contained in the Black hole until it was all sucked in and then was all released at once in the alternative area
I was hoping string theory would not be brought up, because I don't understand it. Big Bang is not necessarily atheist, because god could have created the singularity to start the Big Bang, which would not conflict with religious text. I don't want this to turn into a religious argument. The point is that Big Bang is not necessarily atheist, so why create string theory in the first place?
ReplyDeleteObviously they think it is right. I don't see the point though. Where do they come up with this idea? Sure, it works, but it does not solve the problem of completely understanding the universe. It only makes it more complicated. It still doesn't answer where matter and energy came from, or where the branes came from. It's the same old problem, just more complicated.
I think there is a definite boundary to the universe, or it could not be expanding.
My problem with energy coming out of black holes is that nothing can escape a black hole.
Besides, that means LoCoM and LoCoE are indeed destroyed. That's disappointing.
About my theory, it probably makes more sense if there was no white hole. It all just got sucked in, and then expanded again.
Quite a few scientists do not support the Big Bang Theory. That's why we call it a Theory.
ReplyDeleteDan, you had said that "god could have created the singularity to start the Big Bang, which would not conflict with religious text". However, the Big Bang does not fit into the Bible. A close examination of the first chapter of Genesis reveals that the first thing God did was create the earth, nothing before that. I'm not sure about other religious texts, but the Big Bang does not fit with Christianity.
I'm not trying to bring religion into this, that could very quickly get messy, I was just pointing out an error.
I see your point. On that note, string theory does not make it any better. It just makes it more complicated and less likely for there to be a god, so I don't think that is why they came up with string theory. End of religious discussion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you, and would like to add that I don't get string theory either. On the show I watched it explained it as the one thing that we see, fractalized forever and reflected off the universe bounderies. If there were boundaries, one object would take up all the space and there'd be no room for anything else. that creates reason for no boundaries, and no theory, another reason I don't like it. I could give the reason why people don't like the big bang theory for the sake of religion, but I will refrain.
ReplyDeleteNot that you would care, but... I believe I have hung out with Mr. Brumbaugh too much because I really enjoyed you saying "note" and "string" in context with each other.
OK dan here is my theory.
ReplyDeleteI can partially agree with string theory but i also dissagree. My thoughts on this conunudrum is that there is an infinite amount of dementions that expand and contract in sequence. these movements are desided by there neighboring dementions. so our demention is expanding and so the dementions beside us are contracting. when the neighboring dementions get so small that they turn into a black hole quantam phisics take over and destroy it to create the BIG BANG. in turn due to expantion our demention would shrink and basically suck itself into a black hole thus also explaining the expantion theoroy in the fact that it will insrease volosity the longer it takes to shrink again. It also explains the BIG CRUNCH.
Aaron, when you speak of dimensions, do you mean the first, second, and third dimensions of our universe along with other great dimensions? If that's what you mean, then you are saying that the 2nd dimension is expanding and contracting to make the 3rd dimension move. That is certainly not happening, because our entire universe is expanding at the same time, which encompasses four dimensions all at once.
ReplyDeleteI think you mean universes. If a nearby universe expands, ours will contract. However, the problem with that is our universe would only contract on one side. Therefore every second universe must be expanding to make the universes in between them contract. Basically universe 1 expands while 2 contracts while three expands while four contracts and so on infinitely according to your theory.
Just because I can, string theory is the next topic. This will be fun.
no, parallel dementions not up across and back
ReplyDeleteAnd these parallel dimensions are? 4th 5th and 6th spatial dimensions?
ReplyDelete