B Feasibility of multiple "big bangs"

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter MikeeMiracle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Multiple
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the plausibility of multiple "big bangs" as presented in a pop-science video. Key points include the idea that, given infinite time, particles could theoretically converge in one location, potentially recreating big bang conditions. However, the notion of localized big bangs occurring without affecting the greater universe raises skepticism about its validity. Participants express concerns regarding the reliability of pop-sci content, emphasizing the need for peer-reviewed sources over casual video presentations. Overall, the thread concludes that the video's claims lack scientific rigor and should be approached with caution.
MikeeMiracle
Messages
396
Reaction score
313
TL;DR Summary
Is this pop-sci video plausible?
I found this pop-sci video which sounds plausible to myself but naturally I am not schooled in cosmology so wanted others opinion on the plausibility of it.



Thoughts?
 
Space news on Phys.org
MikeeMiracle said:
Thoughts?

1. Do you want to summarize the video? I mean, if it's not worth your time to summarize it, why is it worth our time to watch it?

2. It is possible that a random Youtube video is an excellent presentation of science to non-experts. It is also possible one will find a nugget of gold in a sewage treatment facility.
 
  • Haha
Likes phinds
It summarizes from 9.42 on wards for a minute and a half. It talks about truly large numbers and possibilities. For example given enough time it's possible that all air molecules in a room will find them themselves at the same place in the room momentarily. By extension it also states that all the particles in an observable universe could find themselves at the same spot recreating the conditions of the big bang given enough time.

He talks of the potential for this to be a relatively "localized" event in an infinite space so overall not much changes in the "greater" universe. For example if our observable universe started collapsing and recreated the conditions of "our" big bang and recreated "our" big bang, an observer 300 billion lights years away would be unaware of this ever occurring.

If this process repeats itself at random places in the universe, it could mean that "big bangs" happen relatively frequently given infinite time, it's just we would never be aware of them. It would also point to in infinite past as well as the infinite future.

I have tried to summarize but it's best to spend that minute and a half watching the summary to get a better idea.

I am familiar of the dangers of "pop-sci" video's trying to teach science and the dangers and gross misrepresentations this can present. Personally I do not find the findings of the video reasonable as the matter would be so spread out so much due to cosmic expansion but his use of "Laws of truly large numbers" and "infinity" with which I am not overly familiar with prompted me to create this post asking for feedback from those more versed in these topics. i.e the members of this forum.

Thank you in advance for your comments.
 
From your description he describes possibilities. For example, all air in a room being at one point is possible, but meaningless. Off hand his presentation sounds like much of the same.
 
MikeeMiracle said:
but it's best to spend that minute and a half watching the summary to get a better idea.

There's a minute and a half of my life I am never getting back.

Vanadium 50 said:
. It is also possible one will find a nugget of gold in a sewage treatment facility.
Oh, it's a nugget all right.
 
  • Haha
Likes phinds
MikeeMiracle said:
I found this pop-sci video
This is not a valid reference. You need to find a textbook or peer-reviewed paper that discusses the topic you are interested in. (Hint: if the video doesn't reference any such source, how reliable do you think it is?)

Thread closed.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top