Did a Pre-Big Bang Species Cause the Big Bang Theory?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Plagosus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang Explanation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Big Bang Theory and speculative ideas regarding its origins, including the concept of a pre-Big Bang species and the implications of light speed on mass and energy. Participants explore theoretical frameworks, alternative explanations for cosmic phenomena, and the nature of redshift.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Plagosus proposes a hypothesis suggesting that a pre-Big Bang species could have reached light speed, resulting in an all-encompassing event due to infinite mass.
  • Another participant explains that the Standard Big Bang Theory accounts for the creation of both matter and radiation, but questions arise regarding the motion of galaxies and the expansion of space.
  • Concerns are raised about the concept of infinite mass and energy, with Plagosus questioning whether this refers to the total energy and mass in the universe, which is believed to be finite.
  • A participant mentions ongoing cosmological efforts to identify missing mass and energy, particularly dark matter and dark energy, necessary for a closed spacetime geometry.
  • One participant challenges the Big Bang Theory by suggesting that redshift may not solely be due to the Doppler Effect, proposing alternative explanations like the Compton Effect or Shapiro Effect.
  • Another participant emphasizes that to dismiss the Doppler Effect as evidence of expansion requires a robust alternative explanation supported by mathematics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some supporting the Big Bang Theory while others question its validity and propose alternative explanations. The discussion remains unresolved with competing perspectives on the nature of cosmic expansion and the origins of the universe.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of concepts such as infinite mass and energy, the nature of redshift, and the implications of current cosmological theories, indicating that assumptions and definitions may vary among contributors.

Plagosus
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Day-dreaming the other day, I postulated a possible explanation for the controversial Big Bang Theory. Because an object attains infinite mass when it reaches light speed, is it possible that a pre-big bang species reached light speed (or near) and the affected object achieved infinite mass (or near), effectively drawing everything in the universe to it, in one all-encompassing bang? Please forgive me if my hypothesis lacks consistency or sense, because of my relatively poor science background.

-Plagosus
 
Space news on Phys.org
Welcome to Physics Forums, Plagosus.
Usually, these kinds of topics are discussed in the "theory development" forum.
I'll move it there now.
 
Plagosus,

The Standard Big Bang created not just matter but also radiation (photons), which were light speed from the beginning until now. This theory could not explain why matter in the forms of planets, stars and galaxies do not have high translational velocity. As a matter of fact, the galaxies are not really moving, it's the surrounding space that is expanding. And this expansion is greater than light speed the farther away the galaxies relative to our observations.

The Inflationary Big Bang attributed the bang to the existence of negative pressure creating the inflaton field. This negative pressure is similar to the force of antigravity.
And it is related intimately to the cosmological constant [itex]\Lambda[/itex] of general relativity.
 
Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for posting in the wrong forum.

When physicists talk of the infinite amount of energy needed to attain light speed, and the infinite amount of mass created as a result, are they describing infinite as the total energy and mass in the universe, because is there not a finite amount of the two?

-Plagosus
 
Cosmologists are still looking for the missing mass (dark matter) and energy (dark energy) that the universe should have in order to form a closed spacetime geometry. That is to say that [itex]\Omega[/itex] greater than unity. The omega is defined as the ratio of the observed mass-energy density of the universe to the critical density needed for each geometry.
 
Last edited:
Plagosus said:
Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for posting in the wrong forum.

When physicists talk of the infinite amount of energy needed to attain light speed, and the infinite amount of mass created as a result, are they describing infinite as the total energy and mass in the universe, because is there not a finite amount of the two?

-Plagosus
Plagosas - Infinite means 'undefined'.
 
BBT is still an unproven theory, based on the premise that stellar redshift is due to the Doppler Effect, (an expanding universe); however there are numerous other causes of redshift, and the type of redshift apparent in starlight may very likely be due to either the Compton Effect, or Shapiro Effect

so don't be so sure there ever was a Big Bang or that the universe (or even the visible universe) is expanding

nobody knows one way or another
since no one was there to see it happen
 
Plagosus said:
Thanks for the explanation, and sorry for posting in the wrong forum.

When physicists talk of the infinite amount of energy needed to attain light speed, and the infinite amount of mass created as a result, are they describing infinite as the total energy and mass in the universe, because is there not a finite amount of the two?

-Plagosus

"Infinite", Plagosus, means "undefined", ergo, any statement that "the mass of a particle achieving the speed of light becomes infinite" is merely a confession of self-ignorance of what really does happen. Don't ask me, hey, I was in Chicago went all that went down.
 
to discount the doppler effect as evidence of expansion challenges the validity of the doppler effect. when you offer a better explanation [along with the math], i will listen.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K