Pre big bang infinite cold inflation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of a pre-big bang scenario involving an infinitely long period of cold inflation, as mentioned by Brian Cox. Participants explore various theories regarding the state of the universe before the big bang, including the implications of multiple big bangs and the nature of cosmic inflation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express curiosity about the idea of an infinitely long cold inflation period preceding the big bang, seeking further elaboration on the concept.
  • Others argue that many pre-big bang theories lack empirical evidence and may be unfalsifiable, questioning their scientific validity.
  • A participant suggests that there could be an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches, emphasizing the speculative nature of theories regarding the universe's origins.
  • Concerns are raised about the aesthetic implications of an infinite regression of big bangs, with some participants reflecting on the philosophical aspects of such a scenario.
  • Another viewpoint highlights that even if there were multiple big bangs, the specific outcomes (galaxies, stars, planets) would likely differ due to quantum mechanics.
  • A claim is made that primordial inflation cannot extend infinitely into the past, necessitating an initial singularity, supported by references to early scientific papers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the validity and implications of pre-big bang theories, with multiple competing views presented. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the nature of the universe before the big bang.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on specific interpretations of scientific theories and papers, while the discussion reflects a range of assumptions and speculative reasoning without consensus on the validity of the proposed ideas.

zerozenones
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
I was listening to Brian Cox on Intelligence Squared and he somewhat casually mentioned the general acceptance among physicists of a possibly "infinitely long" period of cold inflation predating the big bang and of the "sudden" stop to this inflation as the source of energy for the big bang... I'm just a science aficionado, but I thought I kept abreast of the current theory in that area of physics...but I've never heard of this! I'm retelling it from memory here and might not accurately relay what he explained, but can anyone elaborate on this for me?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Brian Cox is a very popular science popularizer but don't take him too seriously. There are several theories about pre-big-bang and they all share one thing in common which is that they all have zero evidence to back them up. In fact, as far as I know they are all unfalsifiable and thus not even science at all. Personally, I'm going with turtles all the way down since it makes just as much sense as any of the others :smile:
 
There are literally like a gazillion theories as to what happened before and after the big bang, each more intriguing that the previous one. For all you know, there were infinite number of big bangs and big crunches before the one that led to our universe. Big bang is generally considered the start of time and people just take shots in the dark about what existed before it.
 
An infinite regression of big bangs would be aesthetically objectionable. Imagine having to live the same life over and over and over ...
 
Chronos said:
An infinite regression of big bangs would be aesthetically objectionable. Imagine having to live the same life over and over and over ...

Not necessary there would have been life. Hawking says that it's strange that the rate at which the universe is expanding is the exact one which is necessary for the sustenance of life. Who knows how many times the Universe had to try to get that.
 
siddharth23 said:
Not necessary there would have been life. Hawking says that it's strange that the rate at which the universe is expanding is the exact one which is necessary for the sustenance of life. Who knows how many times the Universe had to try to get that.
That's just a cop-out explanation. There's no real science behind it. How would you test it? How would you falsify it?
 
phinds said:
That's just a cop-out explanation. There's no real science behind it. How would you test it? How would you falsify it?

You're right. There isn't!
 
Chronos said:
An infinite regression of big bangs would be aesthetically objectionable. Imagine having to live the same life over and over and over ...

First, laws of physics are unlikely to have concept of aesthetics. :)

Second, even if every BB had the same physical laws and parameters (i.e. lasted the same time, the maximum expansion was the same, etc) it does not mean that the exact same galaxies, stars, and planets form every time. Unless we are horribly wrong about quantum mechanics, we know that this is impossible.
 
In an infinite loop of big bangs, whatever happens, however improbable, will be repeated an infinite number of times.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
25K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
8K