Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Another Big Bang Explanation?

  1. Jun 1, 2004 #1
    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.

  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 1, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Welcome to Physics Forums, Plagosus.
    Usually, these kinds of topics are discussed in the "theory development" forum.
    I'll move it there now.
  4. Jun 1, 2004 #3

    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.
  5. Jun 1, 2004 #4
    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?

  6. Jun 2, 2004 #5
    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: Jun 2, 2004
  7. Jun 2, 2004 #6
    Plagosas - Infinite means 'undefined'.
  8. Jun 6, 2004 #7
    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 aparent 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
  9. Jun 7, 2004 #8
    "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.
  10. Jun 11, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook