The Theory that space has always existed

[Orion_]

Now I think that this question should go here, but I'm not sure.
Now the generaly accepted theory of the Big Bang states that the singularity created space and time and mass and energy, however I have been thinking lately and have come to ask "Is it possible that space in the sense of what is beetween planets and stars has always existed and that only time, energy and mass were created by the big bang". I say this because empty space is the complete lack of energy and mass and time and therefore should not have needed to have been created. This theory would suggest that infact the universe could possibly be infinite in the sense that you could travel forever and yet never actually reach a point where you could go no further, however you would still reach a point where mass and energy ended, this would also suggest that the universe will continue to expand infinitely (unless something causes it to stop).

I want to know if anyone else (people on this forum of scientists that they have heard of) has had this theory before and any problems with this theory that you can see.

 

[atyy]

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

 

[ThomasT]

Now I think that this question should go here, but I'm not sure.
Now the generaly accepted theory of the Big Bang states that the singularity created space and time and mass and energy ...

Not 'created' necessarily, but just that given current limitations it's impossible to extrapolate back beyond a certain point.

... however I have been thinking lately and have come to ask "Is it possible that space in the sense of what is beetween planets and stars has always existed and that only time, energy and mass were created by the big bang". I say this because empty space is the complete lack of energy and mass and time and therefore should not have needed to have been created.

It's been fairly well established, via inference, that what's historically been called 'empty space' isn't empty. Some of the most striking empirical results in support of this involve the differential aging predicted by Einstein's theory of Special Relativity.

Then there are the inferences of dark energy and dark matter.

So it would seem that the vacuum voids between planets and stars and galaxies are actually seething with activity in undetectable media of unknown structure.

Whether or not there is a timeless fundamental medium from which our universe emerged will remain an open question. But you're free to speculate and formulate some sort of cosmological model based on that idea.

This theory would suggest that infact the universe could possibly be infinite in the sense that you could travel forever and yet never actually reach a point where you could go no further, however you would still reach a point where mass and energy ended, this would also suggest that the universe will continue to expand infinitely (unless something causes it to stop).

Maybe our universe is a bounded structure, maybe it isn't. Maybe it will expand forever, maybe it will slow down and eventually stop, maybe it will contract. These are all unanswerable questions.

 

[marcus]

Now the generaly accepted theory of the Big Bang states that the singularity created space and time and mass and energy,...
.

I think you are mistaken. There is a great deal of confusion among the general public about what "big bang" theory involves. The word is used in several senses.

Most professional cosmologists would be quite surprised if what you say actually turned out to be true! They do not assume that a singularity actually occurred in nature. That is just what you get in commercial popularizations and on Discovery Channel.

For a rather clear explanation of what is actually involved, see this public service website of a top German research institute. they make an effort to give you the straight dope on it in their essay A Tale of Two Big Bangs. (It explains where some of the popular confusion comes from.)
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/big_bangs

I also keep the link in my signature at the end of the post.
The institute is called Albert Einstein Institute (AEI). It is near Berlin. Their special area is quantum gravity, unified theories, cosmology, numerical modeling of general relativity, gravity waves etc.
Their public service info website is called "Einstein-Online".

The "charley" link in my sig is also good. It is a Sci Am article about the various widespread misconceptions concerning the big bang theory which people have.

===================

Anyway, Orion, it is NOT the accepted idea that a "singularity" actually occurred in nature and created what you say.
A singularity is a breakdown in a man-made theory. It is a sign that the theory is wrong. Typically when singularities occur in physics they are eventually eliminated by improving the theory so it does not break down.
In cosmology we have a singularity that develops around the start of expansion, using classical General Relativity. this is considered as a symptom that GR is inadequate to handle those conditions and has to be improved so it will NOT break down and will continue to give meaningful results. So various ways to do this are being studied. They get rid of the "singularity" which simply means they don't break down or blow up or give meaningless answers, as you go back in time.
The challenge now is to find observational tests to find out which works best.

 

[yogi]

I have been thinking lately and have come to ask "Is it possible that space in the sense of what is beetween planets and stars has always existed and that only time, energy and mass were created by the big bang".

I want to know if anyone else (people on this forum of scientists that they have heard of) has had this theory before and any problems with this theory that you can see.

Our human minds revolt at the idea of a pre origin condition with neither space nor time - this is an area where you can make your own fantasy and no one will ever prove you wrong -Professional cosmologists gnerally regard anything beyond the CBR as speculation in any event -

So for me its more convenient to think that space and time always existed, and for some reason about 14 billion years ago, the local symmetry was broken and the zero energy condition separated into some positive energies and some negative potentials - we call it the Hubble universe - but its not necessarily the only event that would lead to a universe - there could be any number of other systems - they don't necessarily or even likely involve an origin of infinite density - they might be bubbles that pop into being with a density and characteristic that is managable with conventional physics math

In summary there are other possibilities and evolutions that do not involve extreme conditions of infinite density and temporal genesis - but any decent scenario should conform to what is known about nuclear synthesis and the relative abundance of the elements. Within those constraints the imagination can be unlimited

 

[bcrowell]

Professional cosmologists gnerally regard anything beyond the CBR as speculation in any event -

This is incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

So for me its more convenient to think that space and time always existed, and for some reason about 14 billion years ago, the local symmetry was broken and the zero energy condition separated into some positive energies and some negative potentials - we call it the Hubble universe - but its not necessarily the only event that would lead to a universe - there could be any number of other systems - they don't necessarily or even likely involve an origin of infinite density - they might be bubbles that pop into being with a density and characteristic that is managable with conventional physics math

Please review PF's rules on overly speculative posts: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380

 

[yogi]

This is incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesisPlease review PF's rules on overly speculative posts: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380

I recall a post from Chalnoth pointing out the limit of the CBR in this regard - can't remember the exact quote - but in any event - that which cannot be verified must be speculation at this point

[deleted off-topic complaining about PF's rules --bcrowell]

 

[yogi]

I recall a post from Chalnoth pointing out the limit of the CBR in this regard - can't remember the exact quote - but in any event - that which cannot be verified must be speculation at this point

[deleted off-topic complaining about PF's rules --bcrowell]

Here is one of the comments I recall from an earlier thread - that deals with a Cosmologists approach to the singularity

Originally Posted by Cosmo Novice
How do we know that in truth the singularity did not exist? because we cannot understand it?

Chalnoth's response - #19

Because it's mathematical nonsense: if you allow a singularity in your theories, you can basically prove anything you want. The way we fix this is we sort of "hide" the singularities so that the rest of the theory remains well-behaved. In this situation, we just say, "Okay, before a certain time, our current theories can no longer tell us what was going on." By doing this, we can prevent the nastiness of the singularity (which is basically a division by zero) from completely destroying the predictive power of the theory.

 

[bcrowell]

Here is one of the comments I recall from an earlier thread - that deals with a Cosmologists approach to the singularity

Originally Posted by Cosmo Novice
How do we know that in truth the singularity did not exist? because we cannot understand it?

Chalnoth's response - #19

Because it's mathematical nonsense: if you allow a singularity in your theories, you can basically prove anything you want. The way we fix this is we sort of "hide" the singularities so that the rest of the theory remains well-behaved. In this situation, we just say, "Okay, before a certain time, our current theories can no longer tell us what was going on." By doing this, we can prevent the nastiness of the singularity (which is basically a division by zero) from completely destroying the predictive power of the theory.

This has nothing to do with the cosmic background radiation, which was emitted about 400,000 years after the Big Bang. If you look at the WP article I linked to, you'll see that big-bang nucleosynthesis was over within about 10-20 minutes after the Big Bang. Therefore the following was incorrect:

Professional cosmologists gnerally regard anything beyond the CBR as speculation in any event -