Big Bang and Infinite Universe Theory

[Swapnil]

I just had this crazy idea lately. Isn't it possible that both Big Bang theory and infinite universe theory are correct? Seeing how both time and space were supposedly created during Big Bang and the fact that they are closely related, isn't it possible that as you try to *go back in time*, time stretches more and more (to possibly make up for the lack of space) and no matter how far you try to back in time, you can never *see* the signularity *at* the Big Band because time is infinitely expanded and thus the universe behaves as if it was infinite?

I know I am just shooting darts in the dark but am I making any sense at all?

 

[minijumbuk]

i see what you are getting at...but i personally do not believe in the big bang theory..although i have to study it in high school now...
1. you can never go back in time since in order to do that, you have to exceed speed of light...and that is already impossible according to E=mc^2 as when you go faster than light, the energy turns into mass...

2. i don't see how big bang can "create time" since if time did not exist before the big bang, it would be impossible for it to occur in the first place.

 

[Crosson]

I know I am just shooting darts in the dark but am I making any sense at all?

I agree about the shooting darts but no, you are not making sense.

Why do you want an infinite universe? It is not part of the scientific method to impose our philosophical intuition on the interpretation of data.

Even Big Bang theory allows the possibility of a spatially indefinite universe (not FRW cosmology but inflation theory with bubble universes like ours that have not had time (nor will they ever) to exchange a photon).

 

[anantchowdhary]

.
1. you can never go back in time since in order to do that, you have to exceed speed of light...and that is already impossible according to E=mc^2 as when you go faster than light, the energy turns into mass...

I don't think this is true.ENergy can be turned into mass without this.And infact an object can't travel at the speed of light as its energy would increase to an infinite value.So,it would be impossible to move it

 

[ScaleMaster]

There have already been test to show that you can exceed the speed of light. I read an article somewhere of an experiment where quarks of an particle were detected right before they were created when two molecules were slammed together using some technique.

Anything is possible. Somethings just take more time and money :P

 

[anantchowdhary]

no
.Im sorry ure wrong.Nothing can travel faster than light(things that have mass).This is a direct consequence of SR

 

[Newbie says Hi]

There have already been test to show that you can exceed the speed of light. I read an article somewhere of an experiment where quarks of an particle were detected right before they were created when two molecules were slammed together using some technique.

Anything is possible. Somethings just take more time and money :P

The moderators of this site are NOT going to let you get away with that statement, so I'll be nicer than them and say that what you claim sounds like a misconception and/or hype of the article (which is not unusual). In any case, do you have the article to back this up as the PF moderators will soon insist on?

 

[anantchowdhary]

I would also suggest that you revise special relativity.And also the derivations of equations like that of time dilation and length contraction would help you to understand why you cannot travel faster than light

 

[ScaleMaster]

My mistake, I tried to research it up, and I found several articles talking about particles moving faster than the speed of light in a medium, such as water or ice, but not in a vacuum. My apologies.

 

[minijumbuk]

There have already been test to show that you can exceed the speed of light. I read an article somewhere of an experiment where quarks of an particle were detected right before they were created when two molecules were slammed together using some technique.

Anything is possible. Somethings just take more time and money :P

simply incorrect...
there is one thing "observed" to be faster than light (superluminal velocities), infact, MUCH faster than light, so fast that it traveled backwards in time. however it was proven to be wrong later on as the light passed through caesium gas, the components of light reversed, but time did not actually go backwards.
it was simply a wave interference effect..., therefore, nothing can really go faster than light according to law of relativity

 

[ScaleMaster]

Yes I know, I corrected myself

 

[heusdens]

I just had this crazy idea lately. Isn't it possible that both Big Bang theory and infinite universe theory are correct? Seeing how both time and space were supposedly created during Big Bang and the fact that they are closely related, isn't it possible that as you try to *go back in time*, time stretches more and more (to possibly make up for the lack of space) and no matter how far you try to back in time, you can never *see* the signularity *at* the Big Band because time is infinitely expanded and thus the universe behaves as if it was infinite?

I know I am just shooting darts in the dark but am I making any sense at all?

Yes, in fact the theory of cosmological inflation combines both ideas without contradiction.

 

[Flatland]

2. i don't see how big bang can "create time" since if time did not exist before the big bang, it would be impossible for it to occur in the first place.

That is an incorrectly assumption

 

[cosmopot]

This is exactly the idea in astro-ph/0605213

Isn't it possible that both Big Bang theory and infinite universe theory are correct?

This exactly the idea in astro-ph/0605213 or
arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512614

 

[heusdens]

Isn't it possible that both Big Bang theory and infinite universe theory are correct?

This exactly the idea in astro-ph/0605213 or
arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512614

Is there anyone besides this Lin He that has stated the same, and does he have any experimental/observational backup for his extraordinary claims?

 

[heusdens]

That is an incorrectly assumption

In what way is that assumption wrong?

 

[MeJennifer]

I agree about the shooting darts but no, you are not making sense.

Why do you want an infinite universe? It is not part of the scientific method to impose our philosophical intuition on the interpretation of data.

Even Big Bang theory allows the possibility of a spatially indefinite universe (not FRW cosmology but inflation theory with bubble universes like ours that have not had time (nor will they ever) to exchange a photon).

It does not have to be that complicated to have an infinite universe evolving from a single point.

For instance a universe with test particles moving away from an initial point in all directions with unique speeds is infinite and isotropic at any moment in proper time as measured from the center.