The Big Bang Revisited: A New Theory on the Precision of Initial Parameters

  • Thread starter Royce
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Big bang
In summary, the conversation discusses a theory proposed by one person that suggests the existence of a black hole in another universe leading to the precise values of certain parameters in our own universe. The conversation also touches on the topic of inflationary cosmology and its role in addressing certain questions about the universe's size and origin. One person expresses frustration with the theory and its placement in the forum, while another offers links for further reading. In the end, the conversation encourages open discussion and education.
  • #1
1,539
0
I originally posted this in Theory Developement. It got a number of looks but no responses. I have posted it here where it probably belongs to see if it gets any reponses.

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.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
  • #3
A) This absolutely does not belong here, as you are doing nothing but peddling your own theory.

B) Inflationary cosmology fixes all of these problems without any need for any "closed" black holes, whatever the hell that means.

- Warren
 
  • #4
Originally posted by chroot
A) This absolutely does not belong here, as you are doing nothing but peddling your own theory.

As I said I tried it in theory development and got no respose. So I tried it here and have already gotten two responses, so maybe it does belong here.

I am not peddling my own theory as it was just a thought after reading about it. It is hardly original with me. It does semm to answer some of the needs for exact values necessary. I posted it to see if it makes any sense to anybody else or if I'm completely out in left field.
I suggest you chill out and back off. It may die an ignoble death or it may start a discussion. What difference does it make?


B) Inflationary cosmology fixes all of these problems without any need for any "closed" black holes, whatever the hell that means.
Inflationary cosmology only answers some question of why and how the universe is a big as is. It does not even address the questions of exact values for the parameters mentioned nor does is address how the BB came about in the first place. What's you problem?


Wolram, thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

- Warren [/B][/QUOTE]
 
  • #5
Originally posted by Royce
Inflationary cosmology only answers some question of why and how the universe is a big as is.
Inflationary cosmology does not answer this question, nor does it attempt to.
It does not even address the questions of exact values for the parameters mentioned
Inflationary cosmology absolutely does answer the horizon and flatness problems. Perhaps you just have no clue what you're talking about?
nor does is address how the BB came about in the first place.
This is largely a philosophical question. Does your model answer where the black hole came from?
What's you problem?
A) You don't understand real cosmology.
B) You're trying to peddle your own uneducated opinions in the wrong forum.

- Warren
 
  • #6
hi chroot,
your anger is understood but maybe displaced, please remember
that this forums purpose is to educate, i for one value your
opinion, i think you are one of the most educated and up to date
in this forum, please be a little "kinder" to the uninformed
 
  • #7
chroot, I don't understand you anger at me posting this here. Obviously I do not have a good understanding of cosmoogical inflation if what you are saying is true. I am referring to the inflation period that the universe went through as it first started expanding from the most recent models that I have read. Obviously you also think that my pet theory is way out in left field. I defer to wolrams respect for you. I shall return to the philosphy forum where you apparently think I belong and apologize for invading your sacred turf. I did not know you were a mentor nor that this was your personal domain.
 
  • #8
Chroot's agression was out of line. But we all agree that this topic's home is in theory development. I'll move it back and leave a "moved topic" flag so interested astronomy-forum goers can be directed there and hopefully continue the discussion.

Alternatively, y'all could discuss how inflation theory addresses the OP, but given the current condition of this topic, I'd recommend starting a new one that specifically poses a question to that effect. Discussions of inflation theory can be posted in the Astronomy forum.
 

1. What is "The Big Bang a Dropout?"

"The Big Bang a Dropout" is a phrase coined by theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Dr. Neil Turok, to describe his alternative theory to the traditional Big Bang theory. This theory suggests that the universe was not created from a singularity, but rather from a collapsing and expanding cycle of universes.

2. How does "The Big Bang a Dropout" differ from the traditional Big Bang theory?

The traditional Big Bang theory states that the universe originated from a single point known as a singularity. In contrast, "The Big Bang a Dropout" proposes that the universe undergoes cycles of collapse and expansion, with each cycle creating a new universe.

3. What evidence supports "The Big Bang a Dropout" theory?

There are several pieces of evidence that support "The Big Bang a Dropout" theory. One is the observation of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is thought to be leftover radiation from the Big Bang. Another is the discovery of "dark energy," which is believed to be responsible for the acceleration of the universe's expansion. Additionally, the theory helps to explain the observed uniformity of the universe's structure.

4. How does "The Big Bang a Dropout" impact our understanding of the universe?

"The Big Bang a Dropout" challenges the traditional understanding of the universe's origin and evolution. It suggests that the universe has always existed in some form and will continue to exist in a cyclical pattern. This theory also opens up new avenues for research and exploration in the field of cosmology.

5. Is "The Big Bang a Dropout" widely accepted among scientists?

While "The Big Bang a Dropout" has gained some support from scientists, it is still a highly debated topic in the scientific community. Some scientists argue that there is not enough evidence to support this theory, while others believe it offers a promising alternative to the traditional Big Bang theory. Further research and observations are needed to fully understand and accept this theory.

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
861
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
25
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top