Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? Study Proposes Alternative....

In summary, a new paper has proposed an alternative to the Big Bang theory that avoids the need for a singularity in both black holes and the beginning of universal expansion. The author notes that this is still a purely hypothetical concept and there is no empirical evidence for it. The model includes a concept known as bouncing cosmology, which has been proposed before. However, the current understanding of dark energy suggests that a cyclic universe with a contraction phase seems unlikely. Additionally, there is no evidence for the existence of "phantom energy" which would be required for a "Big Rip" scenario.
  • #1
ISamson
Gold Member
438
151
A new paper is proposing a new alternative to the Big Bang.
Silva Neves said his "cosmological model was built from studies in regular black holes," and avoids the need for a singularity in both black holes and the beginning of universal expansion. He notes, however, that this is still purely hypothetical.

"There is no empirical evidence for bouncing cosmologies today," he said. "But there is no evidence for the initial singularity as well."

"The Big Bang as the initial singularity is only a speculation," Silva Neves told Space.com. He said that "there are many observations in cosmology" that support the hypothesis that the universe went through a period of rapid expansion, but that there is no direct evidence that this expansion started with a singularity.

His model includes a concept known as bouncing cosmology.

https://www.space.com/38982-no-big-bang-bouncing-cosmology-theory.html
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
I’m confused by what they mean it didn’t have to “start at a singularity.” Does the author think that physicists believe that black holes and the initial seed were actually infinitely dense?

A singularity simply means it’s a place in the math where our current formulations don’t work. We expect this is because of theories are incomplete, not that there are actually infinitely dense things.

There are multiple frameworks that don’t have infinitely dense points at the beginning. LQG has a cyclical model as well.
 
  • #3
newjerseyrunner said:
I’m confused by what they mean it didn’t have to “start at a singularity.”

I think he is saying that it is a continuous, eternal cycle of Big Bang, Big Freeze, Big Bang, Big Freeze...
 
  • #4
Again cyclic models have been proposed as well as bounce models.
 
  • #5
Can we please stop linking to sensationalist popular science news and start citing the original paper, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10714-017-2288-6

The proposition of a cyclic universe is not new. What he has done (according to the abstract) is to draw an analogy to a family of black holes.

Furthermore, a cyclic universe generally has a contraction phase. Given that the universe is currently undergoing accelerated expansion, this seems unlikely.
 
  • Like
Likes ISamson
  • #6
Orodruin said:
Furthermore, a cyclic universe generally has a contraction phase. Given that the universe is currently undergoing accelerated expansion, this seems unlikely.

Why does the cyclic model seem unlikely?
 
  • #7
ISamson said:
Why does the cyclic model seem unlikely?
Because from our limited understanding of dark energy, it seems to be a constant value. So as space continues to expand, there will be more and more dark energy. The ratio of dark energy to matter (regular and dark) is always climbing so gravity’s effect on the evolution of the universe will slowly deminish, making it impossible to ever start shrinking or even decelerate.

That’s got to be taken with a grain of salt because we have no idea what dark energy really is.
 
  • #8
ISamson said:
Why does the cyclic model seem unlikely?
And I believe you would have to propose some mechanism for decreasing the entropy so that the contracted universe would once again start in a low entropy state.
 
  • #9
Entropy is complicated and there is nothing to suggest it can ever decrease. It is unclear if even black hole evaporation can cause entropy to decrease.
 
  • Like
Likes laymanB
  • #10
newjerseyrunner said:
Because from our limited understanding of dark energy, it seems to be a constant value. So as space continues to expand, there will be more and more dark energy. The ratio of dark energy to matter (regular and dark) is always climbing so gravity’s effect on the evolution of the universe will slowly deminish, making it impossible to ever start shrinking or even decelerate.

That’s got to be taken with a grain of salt because we have no idea what dark energy really is.
Because of dark energy, will galaxies move far apart from each other, or will it result in a big rip tearing apart the nucleus of atoms?
 
  • #11
Phys12 said:
Because of dark energy, will galaxies move far apart from each other, or will it result in a big rip tearing apart the nucleus of atoms?

A "Big Rip" scenario requires more than just ordinary dark energy. Dark energy, as that term is usually used, refers to something that looks like a cosmological constant. In terms of energy density and pressure, it is something that has a pressure equal to minus its energy density. This will just cause accelerating expansion on cosmological scales; it won't affect bound systems.

A "Big Rip" scenario requires something that has a pressure that is more negative than minus its energy density. A term I have seen used to describe this kind of stuff is "phantom energy". I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests such stuff exists in our universe.
 

What is the alternative theory proposed for the beginning of the universe?

The alternative theory proposed is called the "Big Bounce" theory, which suggests that the universe undergoes a series of cycles of expansion and contraction, with each cycle starting from a "bounce" instead of a singularity like in the traditional Big Bang theory.

How does the "Big Bounce" theory differ from the traditional Big Bang theory?

The main difference is that the "Big Bounce" theory suggests that the universe has no beginning or end, but instead goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. This is in contrast to the traditional Big Bang theory which suggests that the universe began from a singularity and will continue to expand indefinitely.

What evidence supports the "Big Bounce" theory?

Currently, there is no direct evidence for the "Big Bounce" theory. However, some theoretical models such as loop quantum gravity and string theory provide mathematical support for the idea of a cyclical universe. Additionally, observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is leftover radiation from the Big Bang, have shown some anomalies that could potentially be explained by a cyclical universe.

What are the potential implications of the "Big Bounce" theory?

If the "Big Bounce" theory is proven to be true, it would fundamentally change our understanding of the universe. It would mean that the laws of physics and the behavior of the universe are not constant, but instead fluctuate over time. It could also potentially solve some of the mysteries of the Big Bang, such as what caused it and what existed before it.

What further research is needed to fully understand the beginning of the universe?

More research is needed in the fields of cosmology and theoretical physics to gather more evidence and develop more accurate models for the beginning of the universe. Additionally, advancements in technology and observations, such as the development of more powerful telescopes, could provide more data and insights into the nature of the universe and its origins.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
927
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top