Speculative theory

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter parth
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the misconception of the Big Bang as a singular explosion, proposing instead a self-propagating matter-antimatter annihilation wave. However, participants assert that this idea is fundamentally flawed and does not align with established observations of the universe. The physics of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) is well understood, as highlighted by Andrew Liddle's "An Introduction to Modern Cosmology." The thread was ultimately locked due to the forum's rules against personal speculation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Big Bang Theory (BBT)
  • Familiarity with cosmological observations
  • Knowledge of matter-antimatter interactions
  • Awareness of forum rules regarding personal theories
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Andrew Liddle's "An Introduction to Modern Cosmology"
  • Research current cosmological observations supporting BBT
  • Explore the implications of matter-antimatter annihilation in physics
  • Review forum guidelines for discussing speculative theories
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, cosmologists, students of physics, and anyone interested in understanding the Big Bang Theory and its implications in modern cosmology.

parth
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
I’ve been thinking about the Big Bang not as a single explosion, but as the beginning of a self-propagating matter-antimatter annihilation wave — where energy from the first explosion creates matter again, which continues reacting with antimatter, causing the expansion of space to still be part of the original chain reaction.
Is this idea fundamentally flawed, or does it overlap with any existing speculative models?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The big bang wasn't an explosion. The physics of the big bang is well understood. See An Introduction to Modern Cosmology by
Andrew Liddle, for example.

Personal speculation is against the rules of this forum.
 
parth said:
Is this idea fundamentally flawed, or does it overlap with any existing speculative models?
It's fundamentally flawed, as such a model doesn't match our observations about the current and past state of the universe. As PeroK said, take a deeper look into what we know about the BBT and how we know it and you'll see why we model the big bang the way we do.

Thread locked, since personal theories and speculation of this nature are not allowed here at PF. If you'd like to make a new thread in the cosmology forum asking about the Big Bang Theory as it is understood by mainstream cosmology, please feel free to do so.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
666
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K