The big bang never happened

[Okidanokh]

The big bang never happened
Time is not an absolute measure.
Time slows down for higher energy values.
If we look backwards in time, as the amount of energy increases as we aproach the big bang, so the time slows down making it impossible to date de age of the Universe except for eternal values.

[jnorman]

there are a number of similar wierd aspects of reality. for example, the concept of distance, or location - to those of us stuck in the sub-C plane, it appears that the universe is enormous, while to a photon, there is no distance between anything and no time passes. reality - what a concept!

[cincirob]

"The big bang never happened
Time is not an absolute measure.
Time slows down for higher energy values.
If we look backwards in time, as the amount of energy increases as we aproach the big bang, so the time slows down making it impossible to date de age of the Universe except for eternal values."

Interesting comments. But even the energy at the beginning of the universe wasn't infinite, so time wold have been passing slowly realtive to the current rate, but it would have been passing.

[juju]

Hi,

The concept of the big bang is based on universe expansion which is based on red shift. If another explanation for red shift can be found it would negate the concept of the big bang.

One explanation proposed is that the photons lose energy through interaction with the basic fields underlying space/time.

juju

[Cheatah]

The big bang never happened
Time is not an absolute measure.
Time slows down for higher energy values.
If we look backwards in time, as the amount of energy increases as we aproach the big bang, so the time slows down making it impossible to date de age of the Universe except for eternal values.

For conventional Big Bang theory to be true requires the most outrageous violation of the Laws of Conservation possible. Everything has to be created from nothing. That just can't happen.

Yes, the collective density of matter via the gravity field it creates would affect time. Time would have moved slower, much slower in the young universe. Conversely, time continually moves faster as the universe expands. Of course, this is all relative to the observer at time now. However, time did not slow to a stop, it only appears to do so from our perspective. A beginning did happen, but our way of measuring the when of it that needs a different calculation.

:surprised Within your observations may lay a more correct answer to the problem: Near the beginning of Doc's CtoC show Saturday night/Sunday morning, he mentioned that part of current parallel universe thinking has a black hole having a white hole at the other end creating a parallel universe. This theory has the white hole as the creation mechanism. Now, you can sneak that one into the back door of your Big Bang theory and whalla: no more Laws of Conservation violations. Use the Black Hole/White Hole model as your new improved Big Bang Theory!

BTW, 'bout those parallel universes. I don't see any evidence for them being the source of dark matter or dark energy. Rather the theory suggests that dark m&e is matter in our universe that has gone back to the beginning of time via the black hole mechanism.

[Doug_1029]

Please forgive the half-baked, half-remembered undergrad physics in what follows. It concerns an alternative explanation for the red shift, as earlier posts to this thread mentioned would be needed before the Big Bang theory could be discarded.

Before I stopped taking physics courses, I attended a lecture that included a recapitulation of successively refined theories of the atom. One stop on the journey was a more or less planetary-system-like model of the atom: electrons as small bodies circulating about the nucleus in regular orbits. If memory serves it was advanced at one point by Rutherford. One criticism was that electrons moving in such orbits would lose their energy, possibly due to synchrotron radiation, and spiral in to the nucleus. I.e., the atom according to this model would not be stable.

My thought at the time was: What would be happening if one lived in such a universe? Maybe the spiraling in process of the electrons would take a long time according to a suitably selected frame of reference or measurement. I wondered whether a human composed of such atoms would perceive distant objects as having a red shift that was greater the further away the objects were. The reason I thought of red shift was that light from objects further away would have been emitted when the objects' electrons (also spiraling in to their nuclei) were at a greater distance from the nuclei, so that their photons would have different (I assumed greater) wavelengths.

The essence of the argument (if it can be called that) was that at the moment of detection, the detecting atom's electrons were closer to the nucleus than the emitting atom's electrons had been, and therefore might see the photon as having a longer wavelength. This would hold in a universe that was not expanding at all.

One obvious objection: where is the synchrotron radiation that the spiraling-in electrons would have to emit. Someone else would have to answer this. What may be interesting about my point is that any process other than relative motion that "ages" photons, increasing their wavelengths over time, is an alternative to the expanding-universe explanation for the red shift. The "Rutherford collapse" of atoms is only one such alternative - there may be others.

Doug

[Cheatah]

BTW, 'bout those parallel universes. I don't see any evidence for them being the source of dark matter or dark energy. Rather the theory suggests that dark m&e is matter in our universe that has gone back to the beginning of time via the black hole mechanism.

However what we know about black holes, or at least what we think we know about black holes suggests that if it has an exit point, it should head backwards, not sideways. These suggestions include:

1. There is a direct inverse relationship between the force of gravity and the passage of time, ie; the (faster you go the) more massive you become the slower time moves (relative to the observer).

2. Time, or more correctly the passage of time, is an unique entity created by motion. While it may not be a tangible thing, time exists and has existed within our physical universe since, well, the dawn of time.

To the best of our knowledge, all things that exist in our physical universe consist of either a sphere or a combination of spheres. Since time exists it follows that it too conforms to the "all things" rule. Therefore time has the conceptual structure of a sphere (or combination of spheres).

We can disect a sphere; take a thin section, so-to-speak. When we do so we find we have a circle. Webster says a circle ends where it begins, and so it is with time.

As touched on in 1. above, according to Albert the faster you go, the slower time moves and the more massive you become, until, at the speed of light, time stops and mass becomes infinite. The theory has been tested and proven correct using around-the-world jet flights and atomic clocks, however since infinity can never be reached the math of it breaks down when mass becomes infinite. Albert never solved this problem.. but then Albert didn't know about black holes.

I suggest that the faster you go the slower time moves and the more massive you become until, at c-x, you implode into a black hole of your own creation. It is at this moment that you pass through that point in Webster's circle where the end and beginning of time meet.

3. Going full circle back to the Big Bang problem. Instead of all coming from nothing, all is recursed from the future. Not the complete answer to be sure. We're still stuck with the chicken & egg paradox, but it's closer to the answer than before, still represents what we see and doesn't break any laws..

[EvilEyeMonster]

Why make it so complicated?

Pure energy was converted to mass when it could not hold itself.

It exploded into that mass.

Gravity formed from mass.

Gravity gathered mass.

Now we have what we see and what we don't see.

simplistic? yes.

Was it a "Big" bang?

ehh... not so sure since without us it could be judged to be any size.

particles would be big enough to a guy the size of a photon...