Precision of The Big Bang Theory with John Gibbin's "In the Beginning"

In summary, there have been many books discussing the precision of initial values for the Big Bang to occur as it has. The amount of mass and the cosmological constant were key factors. One theory suggests that the universe formed from a black hole in another universe that became cut off from its parent universe. This would explain the precise values and the universe's inflation and cooling. There may be different opinions on this theory and further discussions are welcome. However, it raises questions about what is outside the universe and how it can expand without any external influence.
  • #1
Royce
1,539
0
During the last few years I have read a number of books on The Big Bang including recently one By John Gibbin; "In the Beginning." Most if not all of the books mentioned the precision with which the initial values of some important parameters had to be for the universe to have formed as it has. Such thing as the amount of mass present had to be precisely the amount it apparently was for space to be closed and that the cosmological constant had to be its precise value of 1. There may have been others but those two stick out in my mind. It was apparently such a big deal that they wondered if any particular model could account for it or the universe existing as it does at all. Thinking about this I came up with the following model that I think would cover this with the precision necessary.

There was another universe from which a black hole formed and eventually grew massive enough to warp its local space enough that it became closed. It would then be cut off from its parent universe and no longer part of it's spacetime. At the exact instant that its space time closed all of those parameters mention would by necessity at the precise value necessary to just close spacetime have the exact mass and gravity to do so and the Universal Constant would be exactly 1.
At that exact instant it would drop out of existence relative to it's parent universe of origin and into non- spacetime, a dimensionless void where nothing existed not even space itself. The singularity would then be able to expand without restraint including without the restraint of the speed of light as in inflation because there would be no spacetime dimensions outside the universe itself in which velocity or C would have any meaning or could exist. From this the universe would inflate and cool and coalesce into matter and it's own spacetime dimensions as has been described in all of those books.
This would mean that the universe is still a singularity and still inflating into the dimensionless void. Within the universe, of course the events that have happened would not be effect by the nothing that was outside it's event horizon. This I think would account for everything being at such necessarily precise values. (Another thought came to me as I was proof reading this. Any and every black hole or singularity would and could not be effected by anything what-so-ever outside of its event horizon. Just as we cannot see anything inside it, it can't see anything outside of it.)
I welcome any and all discussions on these thoughts. If you are able to show me completely wrong and off base and explain why or how to me I would appreciate just as much as any support. If I'm wrong or uninformed I want to know just as much as I want to know if any of this makes any sense or has any validity. Either way I can forget about it and go on to something else instead of being plagued by these thoughts all the time.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Royce,

Does it mean the the universe is a singularity (= a black hole ?) and we are living in it ?
When you say inflating in the dimensionless, what does it mean : I never understood what is really expending into what ? Of course there is nothing that can influence outside the frontier of the universe.
My understanding, in the case of a black hole, it that it becomes more massive because it absorbs matter from outisde. In the case of a universe, is there something outiside ? If yes, then this is not the fulll universe.If no, there how could it expend ?

With Best Regards Jean-Louis
 

1. What is the Big Bang Theory?

The Big Bang Theory is a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. It proposes that the universe began as a singularity, an extremely dense and hot point, and has been expanding and cooling ever since.

2. Who is John Gibbin and what is his role in the Big Bang Theory?

John Gibbin is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist who has made significant contributions to our understanding of the Big Bang Theory. His book "In the Beginning" explores the scientific evidence and theories surrounding the origin of the universe.

3. How precise is the Big Bang Theory?

The Big Bang Theory is considered to be highly precise and accurate, as it is supported by a vast amount of observational and theoretical evidence from various scientific fields. However, there are still some unanswered questions and ongoing research in this area.

4. What evidence supports the Big Bang Theory?

Some of the key evidence for the Big Bang Theory includes the cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of light elements, and the observed expansion of the universe. These and other pieces of evidence are consistent with the predictions of the theory.

5. Are there any alternative theories to the Big Bang?

Yes, there are other theories that attempt to explain the origin of the universe, such as the steady state theory and the oscillating universe theory. However, the Big Bang Theory remains the most widely accepted and supported by scientific evidence.

Similar threads

  • Cosmology
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
150
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
918
Back
Top