Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end

Link to the article in question.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

I didn't even read that (I'm about to however), but I already tell myself that there was no "beginning", and that there will be no "end".

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Fascinating. I'm not sure how to visual the "3-sphere"ness though..

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

I have to say this isn't really "new". I've seen this passed about recently but models such as this have been around for a while. It will be interesting to see when it is tested against other observations (Type Ia SN is not an entirely conclusive test, and there are plenty of models out there that fix the flatness/acceleration/etc. problem).

For the 3sphere: first read: stereographic projection then look at: a nice picture....

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

I'll admit I haven't read all of that, but if there was no beginning, nor an end, why is there a beginning and an end for us? - if the Universe is indeed infinite, shouldn't we be infinite also?

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

The universe isn't a cabon-based lifeform, with degrading protein chains and neural functions.

The fact that we live and we die is an important aspect of Earth's ecosystem. If all animals were to live indefinitely it would be disastrous. A similar ecosystem, of sorts, exists in the universe at large in the form of stars.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

So that picture is the projection of a 3-sphere onto a 3D universe?

The article said the model predicted periods of acceleration and deceleration. What causes these periods? Is it a regular oscillation, or does it occur more spontaneously?

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Yes, it's (sort of) analogous to a shadow. (If you look at the stereographic projection of a 2-sphere you'll see what I mean).

In "standard" cosmological theories these are caused by the evolution of various (non-)interaction scalar fields. However in this theory the "new" idea is having varying constants (i.e. the speed of light) which change how the evolution of the universe proceeds. I'll leave this post as a placeholder in case you want a more detailed explanation and don't believe delving into the nuance would derail the thread :) (just let me know)

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

If there was no beginning, where did everything come from?

This just seems like a theory for people who cant think outside the box.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Another question: why is the big bang model being used instead of this one? Does the Big Bang model still describe the universe more accurately or more completely than this one? I haven't read the proper paper fully (seeing as I don't understand most of it) but the article has nothing but good to say about this new model and nothing but criticism for the Big Bang theory.

What scalar fields are these? Like time, etc?

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

:Puzzled:

So what are the dimensions being played with? I mean three, maybe even four make sense. Height, depth, width - time maybe. Or are they just things that do useful stuff in maths?

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Basically this model may solve some of the problems associated wit the big bang - but so do plenty of other theories. The big bang model has quite a lot going for it though (although it does have obvious discrepancies too), it predicts the light element abundances (when combined with the standard model of particle physics), and is a simple and well motivated model. While this "new" theory may be promising it will take some time to establish whether it has the potential to replace the big bang model as the standard cosmological model as there are many other observations it must recreate.

Sorry - I'm in the habit of using jargon way too much. A scalar field could be gravity, the higgs boson, or some other mechanism we're not aware of.

In this theory it refers to 4 spatial dimensions. While it may seem unnatural to most people not in physics, there is quite a bit of motivation for at least investigating the idea that we "live" in a three-dimensional view of a higher dimensional universe.

Interestingly, and slightly off topic, we may be able to see glimpses of thses extra-dimensions at the LHC... :)

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Yes but what ever dimension you find, outside of our own, is it not going to be a 3 dimensional area in its own right anyways ?, if its possible.And if its not, how can we ever observe it ?

Time being a dimension is questionable , l will admit l dont really understand that.

Anyways this new or oldish new, new proposal contesting the big bang theory, is no where near as good as the big bang model.That is probably why the big bang model will outlast it, and many others that have come and gone.
The big bang model, has an awful lot of red shift data to support it, its pretty likely that a big explosion really did happen, even though we cant find the centre, where it all really started.
Very interesting though !

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

OFFTOPIC sorry guyz but hey, i like your siggy! :p

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Though this sounds a bit complex, the details that is, hasn't it been asumed that materials have always been around. Thus no beginning, no end. As far as I knew we simply believe our current and expanding universe to have come from "the" big bang, but since all materials have been around in one form or an other there has been some sort of universe before the big bang (and after the "big crunge" if that is indeed to happen aswell).

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

No its been more so assumed that before the big bang there was nothing.As in no particals or elements.
We were taught at primary school that before the big bang there was nothing, not even time.
In high school you learn something slighly different.
Then in collage all of what you have been taught about origins, makes no sence anymore because of the realization of the complexity surrounding the topic !

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

I don't know what my textbooks (late 90's, early 2000's) said, but I'm pretty sure they didn't said that there was "nothing at all before the big bang". It said that current theories assumed that the big bang created the (current) universe, that it seemed to expand and perhaps contract again at some point in time. But I am quite certain I didn't read anything along the lines of "before the big bang their were no particles" , that would even make sense, as how could material come out of nowhere? The particles of the universe always having been there in one form or the other makes much more sense. It would be rather revolutionary if a theory would support the creating of material out of a true void!

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Perhaps they're thinking outside the box more then you realize. The normal view is that it all started from somewhere. They're talking about something that defies current logic and our understanding of how things work. But how much do we really know about space and what is out there? We're still stuck on one planet out of an untold number of trillions.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

That's how I think, you summed it up great. We have it stuck in our brains that the logic of our own little planet has to be the same for everything else. Everything that humans know of has a beginning and an end, so the logical thing would be to assume everything has a beginning.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Your mixing what you know now with what used to be taught l think.

We were taught.
There were no particals before the big bang, just mass, and gravity, no elements or particals, or time ,thats how it was taught to us in primary school.

In high school that changes with evidence.

Its a 'theory' that everything was already here just in a different form.
It is supported by evidence.
In that theory does it describe where gravity or mass originated, in the time before time or before the big bang ?

In effect, when the big bang happened, it looks like we got particals and elements from gravity and mass, just what is mass, and just what is gravity, two things humans dont understand properly, but gravity is not something you can make a cup of tea with, water particals are, it could be argued that you got something from nothing in that conversion of energy and mass.
The conversions by product was our universe and the elements in it.

Gravity is a force. Not something you can pick up and throw. Like particals.
Mass, is very confusing when gravity is added, and no human yet understands them properly.
Mass isnt even an object or force, but rather our form of measurement.

Particals are something.
Particals were created in the big bang conversion.
Everything is not energy.Well it is, but it isnt.
Everything contains energy.
A rock is a rock, and its energy is usually bound by its mass and density.
But its still a rock, made from rock particals.
And just to keep you interested...
What is energy ?

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

How can the universe always exist, but we can measure the light as being some 13 billion years old?

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

But what if you annihilate something with its antimatter equivalent? Where do your "particals" go?

And rocks are not primarily bound by mass and density. Rocks are primarily bound by energy.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Perhaps, sadly I don't have access to my highschool books anymore so I can't check to see what the wrote. :(

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

So are you. Well you're stating what you've been taught, but this is high school physics and so is not always entirely accurate (read: mostly inaccurate).
You were taught the big bang theory in primary school? (ages 4-7?) In any case, there is no general agreement (due to lack of any evidence or method for testing) on what occurred before the big bang.


I'd say mass is much better understood than gravity. But we're obviously still missing pieces of the puzzle (which, hopefully, confirmation of the existence of the Higgs boson will go some way to filling in).


It depends really. All forces are mediated by particles. For electromagnetism you have the photon (light), for the force that binds particles together you have other particles (depending on the force). There is postulated a "graviton" which is the theorised mediating particle for gravity.

In physics mass is considered the result of a "charge", in the same way electrons have "charge" in electromagnetism, massive particles have "charge" in the Higgs field. So in that sense it is considered a "force" (sort of).


Could you explain what you meant by this?

I think Feynman dealt with the abstract-ness of energy quite well

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Light isn't mass and doesn't exist on it's own. Do you judge a flashlights age by how long you turn it on?

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

If its on all the time, you can tell how old it is by the strength of the light.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

You missed his point l think, and if its left on [torch ] all it tells you is the strength of the batteries, not the actual torch, the torch could produce a brighter light beam, if it had more current.anyways yadda yadda yadda.

Yes necro in primary school they taught us about the big bang, although at the time they referred to it as just a huge explosion, no it wasnt bound by complex explanations, lets face it, in its raw form the big bang idea is pretty neat and fits well, even today with everything we know, better than any other idea/theory.
As for the rest of the post l was just being a little philosophical.

In physics mass is considered the result of a "charge", in the same way electrons have "charge" in electromagnetism, massive particles have "charge" in the Higgs field. So in that sense it is considered a "force" (sort of).

yea sort of, and the exact understanding is ?....not perfect perhaps.Was kinda my point in the whole post mate.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

[QUOTE=necrosect;5373664]So are you. Well you're stating what you've been taught, but this is high school physics and so is not always entirely accurate (read: mostly inaccurate).






It depends really. All forces are mediated by particles. For electromagnetism you have the photon (light), for the force that binds particles together you have other particles (depending on the force). There is postulated a "graviton" which is the theorised mediating particle for gravity.

Yea so, like l said you cannot pick up and throw gravity.
And again our understanding of it is limited.





Could you explain what you meant by this?

Probably not, but what l meant was, everything was energy, is matter, is mass, is energy, pretty open interpretation, l was being philosophical again sorry.




missed ya post so l tacked it on last sorry .

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Your posts smack of condescension on a matter about which you patently have no understanding. While I feel it a responsibility (as a scientist) to attempt to explain matters of science accurately and concisely, where possible, your absolute refusal to ever listen or incorporate anything that doesn't agree with your initial view on a subject puts me at a complete loss. This may have been better served as a private message, but I really can no longer take the time nor effort to respond to any of your posts regarding science or religion as it seems I may as well talk to a brick wall. Painted in lead. Locked in a safe.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

l dont either, but, l do remember the class where l first learndededed it !
And l remember what was taught, basically what lve already posted.
Its not about scientific detail and accuracy in primary school or even high school , its about opening young peoples minds to possibilities and exploring other options for a solution.
That lesson teaches so much more than people realize.
It teaches kids, to explore new options, rather than accept the traditional answer, its my generation, the generation before mine, and pretty much all generations after, that really think outside the box.Go science.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

No need to be rude, l listen to you, more so than any other person ever to post on filefront, sorry if lve come across as a c_nt.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Do I have to cite thermodynamics again?

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

You could have a universe that continues forever "effectively". That is , something similar to what's called the phantom energy catastrophe (no joke, that's its name). This is where the universe continues expanding more and more until the average distance between elementary particles sufficiently reduces the force so they are no longer bound. This would basically make the universe a sea of particles that are growing farther and farther apart.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

I have pondered about this possibility aswell. Humans created the concept of time. We judge time by conditions of our planets: 1 day being a rotation of the Earth, 1 year being a rotation of the Earth round the Sun etc and we try to judge the age of the Universe based on our own created concept. But what if our concept of time doesn't have any meaning when applied to the Universe itself. I think it is thinking outside the box thinking that something doesn't have a start and end point as it goes against how we perceive time to work.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Our concept of time would have meaning anywhere. Its accuracy that would be off, but that is also relative.

Basically, everything takes beyond our lifetime.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Tanith: I think you're confusing "measures of time" (i.e. the day / month / year) and the "concept of time".

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Maybe he is, but it is interesting.

To think, if the Universe is infinite, that's just the Universe, the black, the essence that we can't actually see or touch. We know that Stars (the Sun) ages, as do the relevant planets, and us. What if the Universe is in fact infinite, but the objects within are the ones that are not? 'Time' would exist, just for everything in the Universe, and not the Universe itself.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

I was under the impression that if the universe were infinite in age that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the one that involves entropy.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Go ahead?

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

l recon time was around before the big bang too, but who knows.

One thing though, about the universe expanding forever so to speak, what about blackholes ?
They will be all thats left in the end if they just zip around eating everything out there.
Its hard to imagine all the matter just expanding forever until they go, what, beyond light speed themselves?
Sooner or later the biggest blackhole of all time will be all thats left, and what happens then, does it inverted and do who knows what ?Is it possible we could get another big bang ?

Does quantum gravity really hold the universe together as a structure ?
And when that structure fails ? The fabric of space or whatever it is.

Of coarse everything is theory or hypothesis, we theorize so much but know so little.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

This isn't entirely true. For the most part, theories that predict an infinitely aged universe would violate the second law but it is possible to construct ones that don't. That is, over an infinite amount of time the change to entropy is finite (I think the best way to think about this is like a convergent infinite series - the sum of infinite finite numbers can give a finite number). In this manner it is possible to imagine a universe that obeys the second law but has infinite age.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

You'll have to elaborate on this for me.

Should that be the case, what was the big bang exactly?

Black Holes are interesting, but not infinite.

If a larger black hole were to come across a smaller black hole, I believe that the larger one would 'consume' the smaller - this does not mean that the larger one would grow in size. It would remain the same.

As for a Black Hole being all that is left at the end, I do not think so. There are always going to be Stars dying and being born, I expect in larger numbers too (especially if the universe is expanding). When a star dies, it'll either explore, potentially creating x number of other stars in it's wake, or it'll implode, and become a black hole.

So long as there is a Universe out there, I believe that stars will forever continue to do this, and with new stars come new rocks, and with new rocks come new planets, and with new planets, comes new life.

It's everlasting. I'm guessing only some small portion of this life will ever 'make it to the stars' as we put it today. Think how many species of animal have been on this very planet, yet haven't made it across continents, yet alone to the moon or beyond.

My Head!!!

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Well, because the age of the universe is infinite, and entropy increases with any action in a closed system, assuming the universe is a closed system, then by the time we've come along, entropy would be infinite and everything would be a homogenous soup of particles floating around.

So...change to entropy over time decreases and tends towards a finite value...? If you were into designing universes, how would you make this happen?

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

[QUOTE=Aerilon;5379864]You'll have to elaborate on this for me.

Should that be the case, what was the big bang exactly?



Erm, a big bang.....
What makes it law that time MUST start with the big bang, we simply cannot tell if time started with the big bang or before it.
l would argue for any action/re-action to occure, time must already be in motion, something caused the big bang to actually go bang, without knowing what elements were involved all were left with is the hypothesis that time may have been there.

PS.My understanding of blackhole is that if one eats another it gains MASS, ie it gets bigger, in the end of time as we know it, all that will be left is blackholes, is one theory, more mass , more gravitational pull, its a bigger blackhole, also, the blackhole at the centre of our gallaxy is the biggest one we have seen, far bigger than others seen.l think your wrong about blackholes.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Good question.
So I guess the best example to use would be a (hopefully) familiar one. I imagine at some point you will have come across the gaussian (or normal) distribution. This serves as a good example for what I was trying to get across, as while at any point in (x) the function:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/e...9a0b69fbf6.png
has a non-zero value. This is because functions like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/d...af5e2fd5ae.png
only decrease with (x) and never reach 0.

This further implies that while the normal distribution has a non-zero value for ALL values of x, the integral of it (i.e. the total area under the curve) is, something like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/1...8716ed9d38.png
Which if we set x to +infinity is = 1.

This is the sort of property we would require of the change in entropy (as a function of time) if we were to allow "x" (i.e. time) to go to -infinity without violating the second law (i.e. the integral remaining finite).

Now, onto how I would achieve this. I would postulate the existence of a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field]scalar field[/quote] that acts as a "fluid" in the friedmann equations which describe (roughly) the expansion of the universe. In these equations all "matter" in the universe is described as a "fluid", and we can evolve the size of the universe (and other values like entropy) with time. I would "design" this scalar field to allow the universe to have an infinite age and still match up with current observations and established values. To actually "evidence" this I would have to use the inclusion of this scalar field to make a prediction about the universe and its behaviour.

Hope that (roughly :) ) helps.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

yea ok, erm, what ?

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

He asked me how I would go about it (if I were into designing universes, which in a way I was). That above is how I would go about it, with no real detail. It's sort of difficult to explain without a massive post.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Yea l got that, hence the, whaaaaaaaaat ? hahaha

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

So entropy is the integral...so what becomes the derivative of entropy? I know it wouldn't need any physical 'manifestation', but what would it be?

So in essence depending on the size of the universe, then the physical constants in that universe would change also; so they'd be constants still, in the sense that we would not be able to change them, but they would still be able to change? Wouldn't that, over longer periods of time, cause quite an 'interesting' universe? For example, if the gravitational constant kept changing, then wouldn't the velocities and orbits of all the planets, galaxies, etc. change as well? Or wouldn't satellites just crash into their host bodies? (I don't know if gravity in this way works in a positive or negative feedback system).

Isn't that what the original paper is proposing? An infinitely old universe with changing physical constants coupled with oscillating periods of expansion and contraction?

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

This is effectively what's been done yes. The models don't necessarily require variable "constants" of nature as this one uses, but it is becoming a more and more common feature.

Interesting to read on a similar vein would be "Joao Magueijo: Variable Speed of Light Theory (VSL)" or the "pop-sci" book he wrote "Faster than the speed of light" (from memory). In any case that and "the first three minutes" by Weinberg serve as a decent coffee table physics read :)