Agnostic.com

29 17

The Big Bounce has challenged the Big Bang!
If correct, the universe is eternal-- it was never created (by 'god' or in any other way) and will never end, but instead go on forever, in a neverending cycle of expansions and contractions.
[bigthink.com]

Storm1752 8 Mar 26
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

29 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

6

Yes, the universe must exist throughout the infinite past, and will continue to exist infinitely into the future. This must be true, because matter and energy do not emerge from nothing. Nor do they disappear into nothing. They may change in form, but they exist throughout infinite time.

That is an opinion, not a fact.

@Fit-50something Think about it and it makes perfect sense. The planets and stars around us are composed of matter and energy. If we break things down, we see that everything is made of atoms, and atoms are made of sub-atomic particles. It is possible that sub-atomic particles existed forever in the infinite past, and only at a specific time formed into molecules and elements, and then into planets and stars, then into plants and animals. Did those sub-atomic particles just magically appear out of a vacuum? No. Matter and energy must have existed from the infinite past in order to form today's reality.

What if the religionists are correct, that there was a beginning? "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." If so, where did that god come from? Did he exist forever? Or did he magically appear out of a vacuum? He, or his ancestors, had to exist forever, and probably had a planet to live on. It would be hilarious to think of a god floating around in a vaccum for the infinite past, and suddenly deciding to create planets, stars, plants and animals. No, even if a god existed, he did not suddenly appear out of a vacuum. He had to have been formed from previously existing matter and energy.

Ask any scientist if matter and energy can be fromed from a vacuum containing nothing. I'm pretty sure they will tell you that's impossible.

Again, you are submitting opinions, not verifiable facts.

You're right, the Universe has always been here, and always will be.
The Big Bang and Big Bounce are both wrong.

6

That’s a Vedic idea. The Breath of Brahma. t’s been around forevermore. Nothing new there!

And this Vedic knowledge was verified by..............?

@Mcflewster Not saying it was. Just saying it’s been there forever.

5

I read the article and find it to be interesting but wanting. If I understand what they are proposing then the Universe expands and contracts over time and does this on a schedule. Research does not bare this out. The math says that there was an event, that cannot be described mathematically, that allows for the Universe to have started from a point, from that point all expanded to ultimately become what we see today. I will give them that this point may have resulted from a previous expansion and contraction, bu there is no proof of this and if one thinks about it this kind of makes no sense. There was a concept in Einsteins math that tells us there is a cosmological constant for the expansion of the Universe. This constant can either be positive, negative, or zero. It has been found to be positive and it has also been found to not be constant but increasing. So if it is increasingly positive it is hard to see how the Universe comes back together to bounce again. So the data is showing us that the Universe is expanding and will continue to do so, unless there is some mechanism where the Universe comes to a limit (controlled or influenced by ?) and then defies all data and starts to contract. I liken this to spilling a gallon of milk on the floor and wanting it to go back into the jug without some outside influence. Now there may be a large vacuum cleaner in the sky to provide for this event but there is no evidence for even a theory of this, much less evidence for why there would be one. So one has to clean up the mess or want for it to solidify and walk over it. As for the Vedic writings, they are great at figuring things out, as in doing math fast, but that is provable and I think they are much like the Bible in that there is some truth there, but it may not be where one thinks it is. Just because a religious text states something does not mean it is correct necessarily.

Thank you ~

Heck, Dale, the Bangers invented the dark energy an expending universe requires.
At a rate so slow that Hubble didn’t find it, that dark energy can decrease and the expansion can slow until it stops and the universe starts shrinking back to LeMaitre’s primeval atom. At that time the expansion starts again. That’s compatible with a Buddhist explanation. LeMaitre’s seeing a Catholic explanation might have been a mistake.

5

At this time it is not as well accepted by the scientific community as the Big Bang. Actually all scientific theories of the beginning of the universe have unresolved aspects to them, indicating that there is still much we do not understand.

I think the Big Bang is just easier to digest for our sensibilities. After all, we are born and we die, we have a beginning and an end, and so it's natural to presume that the universe might follow the same pattern.

However, it bears noting that this is a very anthropocentric view of the universe in so much as just because we are born and die that is no guarantee or necessity that the universe must do the same.

@TheMiddleWay We have to remember these are theories, as we have yet to find an eye witness.

@creative51
True.
And worse for not even being a theory!

From the article: "The Big Bang is not something that we really deeply understand, we have no theory of the Big Bang," says Steinhardt.

4

If they are still "toying with the idea of the bounce" it's still not a theory, just an idea. So the whole article as of now is just mental masturbation without any substantial equations drawn behind it for support.

It’s mental something else. There’s nothing wrong with masturbation.

@yvilletom so how many times a day do you masturbate your mind?

@Mofo1953 I have never wrapped a hand around my mind.

@yvilletom then STFU!

@Mofo1953 How very tactful. And you distance yourself as the 3rd stage of post traumatic requires. It’s not a disorder; it’s your mind protecting your mind.

3

For those that are interested, you might also want to look at dr. Rodger Penrose'S cyclically conformal cosmology (CCC). It is another model that serves as an alternative to the big bounce and the Big Bang.

Perhaps like a kaleidoscope: only so many pieces but seemingly formations constantly morphing into something else.

3

I can easily buy into that but hey, I'm an English teacher.

3

At last someone who sees the universe as I do. Been here forever. Will be here forever. I ask my friends "can you see forever" when they start telling me "in the beginning."

yet our present universe obviously has not been here "forever?"

@bbyrd009 Of course, things change. But matter and energy to not suddenly appear out of nothing. Nor do they disappear into nothing. The universe extends into the infinite past, and will continue into the infinite future.

@BestWithoutGods well so you say, but wadr we already know that our universe almost surely does not extent into the infinite past, and will not extend into the infinite future, right? Or iow where is your model, that we may test it?

@bbyrd009 The very definition of "universe" is EVERYTHING. It is infinite in time and space. Just imagine a wall around our part of the universe. What is there beyond the wall? More space, of course! Space is infinite. Just imagine a beginning of time. What is there before the "beginning"? More time, of course! Time is infinite.

@BestWithoutGods no offense, but you are deflecting, not replying. Please name the model you wish to forward, or post a link to the theory, if you would. Not saying you are wrong, you might be right, what is that theory known as, and how do the facts we have at hand fit it? Bc "infinite" does not fit the facts as we currently understand them, sorry. Our current best guess is that spacetime started, and spacetime will eventually end in heat death?

@BestWithoutGods similarly (fractally, imo) our "sun" started, and will end, right? Would you argue that our sun has always existed, and will always exist?

@bbyrd009 Seriously? We know that nothing comes from nothing. In order for matter and energy to appear, there had to be matter and energy before it. It may change form, yes. But the things we see in our portion of the universe came from prior things. They did not just magically appear out of nothingness.

@BestWithoutGods seriously, you are again deflecting and not addressing the post. You most certainly do not know that only nothing comes from nothing, as we have already seen all the way back to...10 -32 seconds after the big bang, something like that? Again not saying you are wrong, but you have to demonstrate what came before that i guess, if you are to have any hope

@bbyrd009 I agree that our sun had a beginning and will have an end. I would say that every planet and star in the universe is the similarly temporary. What I'm saying is that the matter and energy that forms the suns, stars and planets, had to exist before them. And something had to exist to form the matter and energy that formed the stars and planets. It didn't just magically appear from nothing. That's why the universe (everything that exists) had to exist (not necessarily in the form it takes now) in the infinite past.

@bbyrd009 Are you the one deflecting?

No, I do not have to pretend to know exactly what the universe was like throughout infinity past. But surely there must have been SOMETHING to form the matter and energy that makes up our universe now. Such things could NOT have just popped up out of nothing.

@BestWithoutGods understanding is that before the beginning of this Universe there was nothing that does not really mean there was nothing, it means there was no way it could be measured or discussed mathematically. Since the only way we can discuss this event is to use math I think we have to realize some things. First, time, space, space-time, distance, heat, all these cannot be measured as they are emergent from the event. Matter does not exist until the energy slowed from the speed of light to form it (energy travels at the speed of light, matter travels slower than the speed of light, always). So before this energy slowed there was no matter, no atomic stuff, only energy existing in whatever form that was allowed by the event. So if there is no means by which something can be measured, then there is no means to discuss what we are trying to measure. So any tool that could be used to measure this process cannot be related to that event. to the best of my understanding, something existed before this process started but there is no way we can get to a place where we could see it or experience it. I am attempting to write a novel in which knowledge of this process can be gained. This is difficult as there is no base to start from so it is all in the imagination. I forgot to mention that there would also not be time until there were some means to measure it. Put all this together the quantum world is going crazy with no intelligence to watch it happen. Unless one is on the other side, but the other side of what.

@dalefvictor I would like to read your novel when it is published. I hope you will make an announcement on this forum, or just message me how I can order it. I like the way you think in the above comment. 🙂

@BestWithoutGods I am rereading this and the punctuation is terrible. Sorry. It is a miracle you got through it.

@BestWithoutGods so you say, and i sure don't know myself--wouldnt say that myself iow, our physics do not apply, see--which is why i was asking for the name of your theory, i might even agree with it 🙂

@dalefvictor Yet I understood it. No problem. 🙂

@bbyrd009 Because I want the core of the book to have the latest scientific information correct, I then can play with it. I have read everything I can find on Space-time, time, which is a large topic of study now. I have tried to follow several sources that are working on a functioning warp-drive, close but no cigar yet. The hardest part is the Math that describes all this, I can follow most of it in theory but do not ask me to solve anything. I am just relating what I have read and trying to put it in terms the ordinary person can understand. There is nothing new here. I can get into more detail if you wish but that will take some time and I would have to go through my notes.

@BestWithoutGods "Such things could NOT have just popped up out of nothing." well, you say that...but, spooky action at a distance? lol

or, i mean, we only have some small grasp on like 5% of "reality," right; im not so sure we are even qualified to comment on "nothing" wadr. Sometimes nothing is a real cool hand!

Actually i don't think you can disprove that everything came from nothing wadr. I can make you hallucinate with nothing. I know this sounds weird, but "nothing" is a powerful force imo

nothing would, literally, drive you insane

3

An expanding universe would seem to be at odds with such a theory, since the expansion is noted from the beginning.

2

The Universe has always been here, and always will be. The Big Bang and Big Bounce are both wrong. Some scientist are trying so hard to discover how the Universe started - but they never will - because there wasn't one.
The Universe must be understood logically, theories and telescopes won't help you.

gater Level 7 Mar 29, 2020
2

I can see something like this and I sway towards it in my belief. Something like it anyway. After all, I was not around to know if the beginnings of our universe even made a noise. I cannot say that a very long time ago something exploded.

2

From what I have read about modern physics and the metaphysical implications, the universe is best described with a tenseless theory of time (colloquially "B-theory" as opposed to the tensed "A-theory" ). Thought experiments (that are really just extensions of our observations) like those relating to simultaneity CANNOT be explained by a tensed theory of time, since the actual sequence of events must necessarily be different for different reference frames. The implication here is that that the big bang inflationary model only describes a temporal boundary, not an "event" occurring.

I wrote about it in college in a paper critiquing William Lane Craig's formulation of the Deductive Argument from Contingency:
[drive.google.com]

yaweh Level 1 Mar 27, 2020
2

It's something to ponder but it is a bit rich to call it a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis but seems to be multiple ideas. I'm sticking with what we have for the moment.

To be clear, the Big Bang is also not so much a hypothesis but just a series of multiple ideas converging on that interpretation.

@TheMiddleWay No it is a Theory. [en.wikipedia.org]

@afrogonalog
From the article:
"The Big Bang is not something that we really deeply understand, we have no theory of the Big Bang," says [Princeton Physicist Paul] Steinhardt."

@TheMiddleWay It is called the "Big Bang Theory" because it is a scientific theory. ie. Someone had an idea, they formulated it into a hypothesis that could be tested scientifically, it was tested by many different scientists which confirmed the hypothesis. Now, the idea in the article adds to Big Bang by adding an idea of what happened before and what will happen later calling it a big bounce but at the end of the day they are just multiple ideas at the moment and they need to move on to creating a provable hypothesis and then proving it. Then they will have a theory. By what I read they aren't arguing an alternative to big bang they are proposing adding to it. They need to define their ideas and follow scientific method. The quote from this man seems strange and misleading to me but I think he may mean that there is more to Big Bang than what we know which is not the entire story but it is a news article not a scientific paper so we don't really know. If so, I agree he is probably right but it's a big leap to say any of these ideas are correct or not. Hope that helps to explain my post.

@afrogonalog
I know we are used to calling it the big bang theory but technically, scientifically, it's not a theory.

The Big Bang has not been confirmed. It's a conjecture based on a series of observations in the present projected, inferred, interpolated to 15 billion years ago. As we cannot go 15 billion years ago and as the Big Bang isn't a unique "theory" (i.e. there are various other models that explain the data), then it cannot be the case that it has risen to the level of theory like gravity or electromagnetism.

In short, while we are used to calling it the Big Bang Theory, a more scientifically accurate name would be the Big Bang Model

@TheMiddleWay Sorry, but that is wrong. These may help, first is what Big Bang is and second is Evidence for Big Bang based on what the Big Bang says (first video).

@afrogonalog
All Good evidence. But a theory is testable and falsifiable, neither of which can current be done for the big bang. This is what differentiates a model from a theory: a model takes a bunch of observed phenomena and creates a mathematical representation to explain them. But a theory actually tests the model directly, manipulating it in a lab, trying to poke and prod to understand how the math fits reality.

Granted, this is impossible for something 15 billion years ago. And hence the great success of teh big bang to make several disparate phenomena cohesive under one framework may want us to relax what a theory is. But because "it's just a theory" is such a contencious view, I feel it best to call the big bang what it is, a model, and not confuse it with well established theories, all of which we can test in a lab to falsify, not just gather observations in conditions we don't control (cosmology).

@TheMiddleWay This discussion over the scientific meaning of theory is getting silly. If you are confused by it then Google it. Can't keep discussing such a basic thing. This theory has the highest evidence hence why it has the highest title in science of theory. It is not a model and to suggest this is ridiculous.There is heaps of information out there.

@TheMiddleWay As you wrote above, a scientifically more accurate name would be the Big Bang Model.
However, following the trail of money as investigative reporters do suggests a still more accurate name, the Big Bang Fraud.

@yvilletom I thought this was a science based group. Had no idea there was so many Believers on here. Obviously converted their religion to Conspiracy Believerists. Or maybe also Science Denialists would be more accurate.

@afrogonalog They are Believers. They need to believe homo sapiens is “greater” than anything evolution could have done.

@afrogonalog
Then don't bring up physics with a physicist if you find talking physics with a physicist silly 😉

@afrogonalog
Also, note that we scientists do not use Big Bang Theory when talking about it; it's mostly laypeople, like yourself I suspect, that call it Big Bang Theory out of a misunderstanding of what differentiates a theory from a model. We just call it just "Big Bang" or "Big Bang Cosmology". Rarely, if ever, do we call it "Big Bang Theory" when writing our papers about it..

TL;DR: While popularly known as the Big Bang Theory, to physicists it's not a theory like other theories such as thermodynamics, electromagnetism, or radioactivity due to the lack of direct experimentation.

@TheMiddleWay Are you still on about this ridiculous obsession you have that Big Bang is not a theory! Do you realise how boring this is? You better fix wikipedia.org and Space.com and the huge number of scientists (including physicists) who say it is a scientific theory and is as well proven as the theory of gravity. If you really are a physicist and ignore the evidence of the Big Bang, it is a bit of a worry. Oh and using your job as an argument that you are right instead of using evidence is called "An Appeal To Authority" and is one of those annoying Logical Fallacies that you should never use in honest discussion. My statement is that it is wrong to imply that Big Bounce is a scientific theory and you have said nothing that proves otherwise so you can try and deflect as much as you like but it makes you look obsessive.

@afrogonalog
"My statement is that it is wrong to imply that Big Bounce is a scientific theory "
Never said otherwise. All I said is the the Big Bang is equally not a theory for the same reasons the Big Bounce is not a theory.

"and you have said nothing that proves otherwise "
D'uh! Why would I say something the proves otherwise when both the Big Bound and Big Bang are neither theories, which is what I've been saying all along.

"Do you realise how boring this is?"
Nope.
You?

"You better fix wikipedia.org and Space.com "
Those are not science publications. Those are laypeople science sites.
And like I say previously, thinking the big bang a theory on par with electronmagnetism or gravity is a layperson's mistake, not a scientific reality. If you do a search in phys rev D, the premier physics publication related to cosmology and thus the big bang, VIRTUALLY NOBODY CALLS IT A THEORY. I did it and found virtually nothing; you should do the same, independently, if you have any desire to understand how we physicists view the big bang.

"the huge number of scientists (including physicists) who say it is a scientific theory"
What is your exposure to scientists to make this claim?
I've been working in physics for 30 years now, in labs, classroom, and hospitals.
The number of physicist I"VE encountered never use BBT; what has your exposure to scientists been such that you can claim otherwise?

" "An Appeal To Authority" and is one of those annoying Logical Fallacies that you should never use in honest discussion."
Except when you are an authority, as I am with my two physics PhD. LOL
Now that doesn't mean I'm infallible;. Of course I could be wrong. But it would take another authority in the subject we are talking about for any critique to be valid. Of which you are not AFAIK.

TL;DR: Physicist working with Big Bang cosmology do not call it a theory. This is proven by the virtual absence of BBT in our physics publication on the subject.

@TheMiddleWay I finally have you agreeing with my post that simply stated that it was a bit rich to call Big Bounce a Theory. You are making the claim that Big Bang Theory is not recognized as a Theory by the vast majority of physicists. Now prove your claim! You are the one claiming to be the high and mighty physicist which I actually don't believe because of your lack of basic understanding and your obsessive "True Believer" biased arguments instead of just supporting your arguments with facts. Now you have brought in this supposed Appeal To Your Authority to just trust you because you are such an authority on the subject. This is my last post to you unless you actually prove the claim that you are making instead of boring nonsense.

@afrogonalog
I never disagreed that the Big Bounce was no theory, so i'm not sure why you are still going on about that.

For proof, I present the lack of usage of Big Bang Theory in the title of works in Phys Rev D. A cursory search for "Big Bang Theory" only brought up 1 hit in the first 10 pages. This proves that scientists that publish don't call it that.

For further proof, I present another misuse of theory: String Theory. String Theory is a misnomer for the same reasons Big Bang Theory is a misnomer: neither can be directly tested (i.e. no experimentation, a key feature of a scientific theory) and are only models to account for disparate phenomena.

TL;DR: Both ST and BBT have entered the modern parlance and we physicists accept that. But you non-scientists have to accept that by the strict definition of a scientific theory, neither is due to the lack of experimentation.

@TheMiddleWay That is not proof and you know that. I will tell you that I know exactly why Big Bang is sometimes referred to as both a theory and sometimes as Big Bang and it is nothing to do with it having bad evidence or it being just a model (Both of which are ludicrous). Now I readily admit that I'm a mere mortal and not the great scientist such as yourself but I was able to find it out online and you can too. It is very interesting and I never knew it. I hope this has tempted you to actually do research instead of just ranting but I also want to thank you for the lively debate that encouraged me to research new things about Big Bang. None of which has changed my view on the evidence or the theories. Big Bounce is an interesting idea but if it is true then it would be an extension to Big Bang and I think it might be difficult to prove with the same certainty.

@afrogonalog
"That is not proof and you know that.
As much proof as is possible on the internet. Were I to meet you, I'd apply a different standard. But as we are on the internet, and strangers to boot, that's pretty good proof to me and anyone else: act like a person on the internet, do nothing different than a person on the internet, good proof that you are a person on the internet... not a god, goat, or dog.

" I was able to find it out online and you can too"
I can find 100 similar articles and none of them will be the one you speak of.
Of what article do you speak?

@TheMiddleWay I'm not biting.🙂 Happy to spar with you on other posts though.

2

I think the universe came about as a result of turbulence from another universe - a cosmic fart, if you'll excuse the analogy, coming from a black hole in that early universe.

But, now we have to wonder where that early universe came from.

There is only one universe. Sometimes even scientists get confused and claim that there are multiple "universes." What they mean is that there are multiple PARTS of the one single universe. By definition, the word universe refers to everything that exists.

@BestWithoutGods That makes sense!

@Fit-50something LOL. I guess it could be a series of farts where the first universe is the prime mover but that wouldn't help at all.

2

I have always thought that the argument can be made that it is not necessary to suppose a beginning or end to the universe.

kmaz Level 7 Mar 27, 2020
2

My problem with The Big Bounce is that it postulates that the universe always was, and always will be. Evangelicals say the exact same thing about God. I can't buy into that in regards to God, and I can't buy into it in regards to the universe, either. Just one man's opinion.

Either is difficult to wrap one's head around, but I have more difficulty with imaging there ever being nothing.

@Rossy92 That one is actually pretty easy for me. The idea that the universe always existed, and didn't come from anywhere - that's the one that I can't wrap my head around.

@Fit-50something
it is equally problematic to believe the opposite. For if the universe did come from somewhere, what exactly does somewhere mean when the universe is all there is?

@Fit-50something I guess you have no problem imagining no time or space???

@Rossy92 No, I have no problem imagining that. I have expanded on that thought in a comment above.

2

It's is an interesting read and something to ponder about

2

Wow. This is an amazing read. Thank you for posting the link. I really needed this to take my mind off of current events.

1

The big bounce sounds sensible to me, because, it takes us away from trying to imagine or understand a "singularity."
But I feel this is a good time and place to present my ideas about the universe:

  1. The universe is all physical matter, chunks of matter, moving around. Nothing more. No "energy," no "space," no "time."
  2. All these chunks of matter have two properties:
    a. entropy
    b. gravity

So, all these chunks of matter, with their entropy and their gravity,
they move away from each other, in certain situations, because of their entropy,
and they move closer to each other, in other situations, because of their gravity.

If these chunks of matter, such as galaxies, are moving away from each other, and their speed is accelerating, that is the entropy at work.

We know that gravity, with black holes as the greatest observable effect of gravity, we know that the gravity, in certain situations, seems to really win big.

For example, the reason the spiral galaxies, such as our milky way galaxy, the reason for the spiral, is that all the stars in the galaxy are swirling around, headed towards the black hole at the center.

From all that, I surmise that, even thought the galaxies are moving away from each other, faster and faster, the gravity will eventually win, and the expansion of the universe will slow down, and everything will collapse, (but maybe not all the way into a "singularity," ) and then "bounce" back to expanding again.

And, very important, I truly agree with BestWithoutGods.

This whole process, had no beginning, and will have no end.

I am surprised that anyone here doubts that.

Religious believers, for some reason, feel at ease accepting a god with no beginning and no end,
and they ask us atheists, "If there is no god, where did the universe come from?"

I find it amazing that billions of mature, intelligent humans,
cannot accept an eternal physical universe,
even though, as BestWithoutGods stated so clearly,
matter cannot come from nothing, and cannot vanish, so, clearly,
the universe is eternal.

Any other idea is simply a fairy tale,

Seems to me.

Oh, and, by the way, if anyone wants me to debunk energy, space, and time, I will be happy to do so.

Just let me know.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The Universe is infinite time, space, and matter. There is no proof than black holes exist, stars have the most powerful magnetic fields. Singularities don't exist either.

1

There’s a lot of wisdom in, Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could.... Who said it?

Search “lyrics on demand nothing comes from nothing”

1

The mind numbing fact that what we perceive as reality had to come from somewhere, the very fact that anything exists shows just how deficient our understanding of physics is.

If anything “pops into existence” as some cosmologists have said, the “popping” occurs in a brain cell, doesn’t it? Or in the synapse between two brain cells?

1

What you say is obvious to me, but human kind, living temporally, finds it convenient to identify a start and end in a specific time frame of the corresponding era. I also see cycles to explain change.

1

Sounds about right!

0

The Universe is infinite time, space and matter. It's always been here.

gater Level 7 Apr 6, 2020
0

Hey, the title above is “Academic (e.g., Science)”.
It’s not ”Academic (e.g., Science Fiction)”.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:476043
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.