No Big Bang: Universe existed FOREVER!

[RoJoHen]

Before somebody else sneaks here and posts this...

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

I just saw this and found it interesting. I admit I am not a quantum physicist, so I definitely don't have a great grasp of the math involved here, but I do find these kinds of things interesting.

The Big Bang relies on the laws of general relativity, which can be used to describe the expansion of the universe. However, prior to the Big Bang, those laws fall apart, and there are things that we've never been able to account for.

Granted, this study also brings up things like "quantum fluid," which seems just as elusive a term as Dark Matter, but I'm no expert. I just thought it was worth sharing.

 

[Silvercrest]

I'm not a physicist either and don't claim to know the math -- so can't tell from the description if this is significantly different than the Steady State theory proposed by Hoyle and others.

I do know that the Steady State theory has been refuted partly because it predicts certain things that we're just not seeing out there, like quasars that are relatively close to us. I have no idea if this theory predicts anything like that, or resolves the existing issues.

 

[RoJoHen]

I just don't know what's more difficult to wrap my head around: a universe that has existed forever, or a universe that had a beginning (because what was here BEFORE the universe?).

 

[Silvercrest]

For the latter, I tend to default to the answer "the previous loop" like a lot of s.f. does.

But really that doesn't help much.

 

[RoJoHen]

Wouldn't that just be another version of "forever?"

 

[Silvercrest]

Not really. In that model, the universe has a definite start and a definite end. And then a definite restart.

Whether the "loop" process continues forever is a different question.

 

[scotthm]

Here is a little different take on the model referred to in the OP:

The new study isn’t suggesting there was no Big Bang, Koberlein says. It’s suggesting that the Big Bang did not start with a singularity – a point in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.

Link

---------------

 

[Skellington]

It's food for thought. I'm wondering what the theory says about black holes and if it eliminates singularities completely; if not, then isn't it a statistical certainty that the universe will eventually become a singularity? (Edit: I'm also wondering if, through a Unified Force Singularity or otherwise, the theory allows for the laws of physics to be inconstant.)

If the theory proves robust and becomes the orthodoxy, then it could have profound philosophical implications. Depending on the scope of the universe's permutations, it could mean an alternative to, or effective duplication of, the Many Worlds Hypothesis (as there might be infinite similar versions of the current universe in the past and future). It would lead to profound nihilism in some ("After an infinite amount of time, this is what the universe amounts to?") and a certain existential and epistemological issue for others ("Does the lack of a beginning imply the lack of a Creator?").

 

[Amaris]

Here is a little different take on the model referred to in the OP:

The new study isn’t suggesting there was no Big Bang, Koberlein says. It’s suggesting that the Big Bang did not start with a singularity – a point in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole.

Link

---------------

This. One of the head researchers is saying the origin point is being discussed, not the Big Bang model itself:

http://www.hngn.com/articles/68295/...ted-forever-this-is-probably-not-the-case.htm

 

[Metryq]

I do know that the Steady State theory has been refuted—

Which Steady State? There's more than one, just as there are many variations under the name "Big Bang."

—partly because it predicts certain things that we're just not seeing out there, like quasars that are relatively close to us.

I guess the name Halton Arp isn't ringing any bells?

(Cue "No. Just, no." in 3...2...1...)

 

[Silvercrest]

<vader> NOOOOOOOO <vader>

 

[bigdaddy]

I just don't know what's more difficult to wrap my head around: a universe that has existed forever, or a universe that had a beginning (because what was here BEFORE the universe?).

That's like saying "What was the world....?" before you were born. The universe always being around makes no sense to me. I like the Futurama version of the universe, it just keeps redoing itself. Clearly that isn't based on anything scientific.

 

[Dryson]

I just don't know what's more difficult to wrap my head around: a universe that has existed forever, or a universe that had a beginning (because what was here BEFORE the universe?).

That's like saying "What was the world....?" before you were born. The universe always being around makes no sense to me. I like the Futurama version of the universe, it just keeps redoing itself. Clearly that isn't based on anything scientific.

That it most likely correct but with everything that keeps redoing itself there has to be a point at which that which keeps redoing itself had initial state of doing, just like that point had an initial state of doing.

The problem with thinking about what occurred before the Big Bang is because Einstein's theories don't exist. Therefore new theories have to be thought of....Its just that simple.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Warning: layman's baseless blabbering following

What is the problem again with we don't know what happened until really, really, really shortly after the Big Bang?

If we assume that the early expansion of the universe was a singularity, it was not only a spatial singularity, it was a temporal singularity as well.

The way I understand it, that there is no definitive starting point.
A beginning presupposes a change of state from something to something else. Since there never was any existance before the universe there can not have been a change of state.

And yet there is no further past beyond the Big Bang. It's just that the concept of a past gets fuzzier and fuzzier the closer we get to it.

That means there is no boundary to time, but the past is still finite.
You can never get to it, you can only get closer and closer, with each step toward it getting smaller and smaller.

Do I sound like dryson now? I can't explain better what I mean.
Damn language limitations!

 

[Taelon]

Something like an asymptote?

 

[HIjol]

Dryson said:

That it most likely correct but with everything that keeps redoing itself there has to be a point at which that which keeps redoing itself had initial state of doing, just like that point had an initial state of doing.

This implies that the "doing" (the action of the "do-er", if you will) has an both an initial and ongoing ("re-doing", if we may) state of "do-ment". And, that the "point" that you reference above, the one that "...that which keeps redoing itself..." exists as an ipso facto lapso point, as well as a geometric/geographical plotage on the Unversal Graph, two states of physical being, in a way, like a light ray and a light photon, but not really.
Further, this re-doing of the re-doing continues for a time, clearly, but just what the "length" of that increment could be can only be known if we can identify the point inside the place that you describe in your statement above as the "everything" (undefined) that keeps on re-doing itself, represented by the point at which you say there is a point that at once keep redoing itself and also represents "...an initial state of doing..."

Though what I have written above would be intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers, I wonder at which point the points referenced as "Initial" and 'Ongoing' would, in fact, become one and, if indeed were found to be in the Einsteinian Universe in the same place at the same time, tear the very fabric of space-time, rendering things asunder and such

 

[RoJoHen]

I just don't know what's more difficult to wrap my head around: a universe that has existed forever, or a universe that had a beginning (because what was here BEFORE the universe?).

That's like saying "What was the world....?" before you were born.

Not really at all. I understand the circumstances that brought me into the world, and I understand how the world existed before I was here.

The universe always being around makes no sense to me. I like the Futurama version of the universe, it just keeps redoing itself. Clearly that isn't based on anything scientific.

I can imagine "forever" going forward in time. What I can't wrap my head around is "forever" going backwards. I understand that physics work differently on a cosmic scale, but here on Earth everything has a beginning, and everything has something that existed before that beginning.

The universe is just such a different animal. I'm actually fine with the notion, scientific or otherwise, that the universe just continuously reboots itself. But even so...before that cycle began, wouldn't there have been a first universe? And where did it come from?

 

[Silvercrest]

I'm going to reverse myself and say yes, I can see the viewpoint that the "eternal cycle" is the same thing as "lasting forever." Not that it helps much.

 

[publiusr]

Fred Hoyle would be very happy. http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.01487

Still, many worlds was just steady state--but for the multi-verse. As for what it would take to prove that, see here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.05397

In terms of everything old being new again--Newton's revenge: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.01614
In terms of walking around physics, it is still very much Newton's universe

Interesting concept----Dark Stars: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.02394

 

[hux]

Doesn't the Big Bang refer to the universe rather than existence. I get these two mixed up. So couldn't the Big Bang happen (regarding the universe) but steady state apply (regarding existence)

Does that make sense