# Thread: Expanding universe without big bang?

1. Most of our scientist believe that our universe was once a singularity, which then started to expand in enourmous
speed. After few seconds of big bang, it explains quite well our observable universe but there is one major
problem - our mother singularity couldn't follow our laws of physics. It sounds easy to say that yep, that's
how it did. Any questions? But it actually has to more like turn our laws of physics up side down rather than
just ignore some of them. In nut shell, to even make it expand at all (lets forget inflation and over, or
even near light speeds) it would need a power greater than gravity caused by our whole universe to expand at all.
It doesn't sound so logical to me. One night i was thinking about that problem, and i asked: how could we
explain expanding without a singularity? i thought some minutes and finally i found a way for it, a way that
im still thinking of to be possible. Matter of universe came here from somewhere, little by little, so anti-
gravity could overpower the gravity caused by mass and density of matter. You might think that this is retarded,
universe has to be singularity and that's it. But has it? What really makes you think that our universe once
followed different laws of physics rather than following the same ones we see today, all the way from the start?
Let's continue, now we come to anti-gravity. We need a force to cause expanding, something that doesn't need
energy to work in they way we know energy does(Because of accelerating expansion). Kinda obivous answer was
angi-gravity, which has an opposite effect that gravity does. Obivous conclusion was that it has to be all
the time much, much greater power than gravity. Somehow i came to a suggestion: it might've got its power
from mass or anti-mass of our universe. Of course, if we left it that way, our universe would have left in
balance between gravity and antigravity in start, and it would never have expanded. I went little bit further
and thought our world as a hourglass, where upper chamber is the place where our matter came from and lower
chamber is our known universe. Hourglass has a constant weight, which refers to our anti-gravity, Sand refers
to matter. When matter first starts to flow in our universe, expanding will be many, many times greater
than we observe today, because there is just a little gravity to slow our constant expanding power down. Matter
continues to flow in and expanding slows down caused by gravity until all of the matter has flown in. After that,
Antigravity starts once again to overpower gravity because all matter is moving further away from each other.
So expanding is once again accelerating, and thats what we see today. What causes anti-gravity? maybe anti-matter,
void energy or dark energy, its up to the universe. This might sound just another theory for the start, but there
is one big thing i want point to. With this model, we would need no new laws of physics or law-breaking singularities,
and as you can see, it would fit perfectly on our inflation theory. No extra dimensions or other only mathematicly
possible weird theories that wont fit in anything that we see, just expanding 4-dimension universe, just as we see
it, explained all the way from te second zero.

Ps. What would have ever hold our universe in a singularity to the point it suddendly started to expand?

2.

3. Universe expanding from a single point is the best model we have right now; because it is the simplest. With it, we don't need to make new assumption: such as anti-gravity or multiverse or *stuff* to explain the way things happen.

With current model you can't really say it is wrong (because there's no evidence against it), but making new assumption (like anti-gravity) is potentially a big wrong (because our imagination is limited), so it is better to stick to the current model and find more clues (so we can make better model).

Of course your idea was about the anti-gravity, but it is just an assumption! We don't need that much assumption unless it is better than current model or if there is evidence to suggest it is true.

4. Originally Posted by Neuntoter
Most of our scientist believe that our universe was once a singularity, which then started to expand in enourmous
speed.
This is not true. Most cosmologists believe that the mathematics of the standard cosmological model only extend a finite distance into the past and end with a singularity. A singularity is a failure of the mathematics of a theory to provide a viable physical description. Most cosmologists do not believe that we have enough scientific knowledge to state that there truly was a first instance of the universe or indeed to state the conditions of the universe beyond a certain point in the past. A basic cosmology textbook should go over this in some detail.
In nut shell, to even make it expand at all (lets forget inflation and over, or
even near light speeds) it would need a power greater than gravity caused by our whole universe to expand at all.
This just isn't the case. The expansion of the universe could simply be an initial condition, like the number of particles there are or their energy state. Gravity would then work to slow (or even to hasten) the expansion, but the expansion is there nonetheless.
With this model, we would need no new laws of physics or law-breaking singularities,
and as you can see, it would fit perfectly on our inflation theory. No extra dimensions or other only mathematicly
possible weird theories that wont fit in anything that we see, just expanding 4-dimension universe, just as we see
it, explained all the way from te second zero.
You have given us no model. You make only vague conjectures, none of which we can compare to the details of the observations that we have.

5. Before coming up with new ideas about the universe, I recommend to educate oneself about the actual content of the current standard model, i.e. the Big bang hypothesis. A good starting point might be:
The basis of modern cosmology

Dishmaster
(Moderator)

6. Originally Posted by msafwan
Universe expanding from a single point is the best model we have right now;
Not really since it starts off with the impossible, a singularity (unproven idea) somehow came about and moved to that point.

We are told a singularity can inflate and expand because everything is within it (with a black hole where the same applies). It was somehow held together (since the force of gravity did not exist at this point) then for some reason it started to inflate (unproven idea), and gravity appeared, and amazingly with almost ultimate density, it continued to inflate due to some unproven and unlikely ideas.

If it is the best model, that is only because we do not have a clue what really happened so maybe the best of a bad bunch (which isn't saying much), helped by one interpretation of the redshift.

because it is the simplest.
Actually "god did it" is the simplest, but equally unlikely since again it too is based on unproven ideas.

I could go on but you get the idea.

7. "This just isn't the case. The expansion of the universe could simply be an initial condition, like the number of particles there are or their energy state. Gravity would then work to slow (or even to hasten) the expansion, but the expansion is there nonetheless." something still should break the ultimate densiness of matter from the start point, was it a singularity or not. Ofcourse we might have expanding space without anti-gravity or some mystical explosion, but it would leave all matter in center of universe.

"You have given us no model. You make only vague conjectures, none of which we can compare to the details of the observations that we have. " What actually proves that im wrong with my _conjectures_? Indeed, im not making science, im guessing, but guessing from the scientifical data i've read, not just by smelling the wind.

"Before coming up with new ideas about the universe, I recommend to educate oneself about the actual content of the current standard model, i.e. the Big bang hypothesis. A good starting point might be:" I've read enough cosmology books to think it a little by myself and make those guestions that i personally think are value. If someone thinks they aren't, its time for a discussion, not for that religious You Fool GTFO-link you are offering.

8. Originally Posted by Neuntoter
. Ofcourse we might have expanding space without anti-gravity or some mystical explosion, but it would leave all matter in center of universe.
When scientists use the phrase "the expansion of space", they really mean the application of a specific kind of scale factor such that the average distance between particles increases. There is no one location of matter, it is all possible locations that get farther away from each other. Thus the universe could have been infinite but still have come out of one initial point, since it was the distance between all possible points that shrunk to zero.
What actually proves that im wrong with my _conjectures_? Indeed, im not making science, im guessing, but guessing from the scientifical data i've read, not just by smelling the wind.
But the stuff that you have provided us with is totally useless. You might as well believe in Descartes evil demon. So far, your conjectures give us nothing that we could take as evidence for their truth; in comparison with standard cosmology, which has a lot of evidence behind it, your conjectures aren't very epistemologically satisfying.
I've read enough cosmology books to think it a little by myself and make those guestions that i personally think are value. If someone thinks they aren't, its time for a discussion, not for that religious You Fool GTFO-link you are offering.
Actually, you haven't read enough cosmology books, since you have a couple of big misunderstandings about the science.

9. Originally Posted by Cyberia
Not really since it starts off with the impossible, a singularity (unproven idea) somehow came about and moved to that point.

We are told a singularity can inflate and expand because everything is within it (with a black hole where the same applies). It was somehow held together
I wonder why people have these odd notions?

All we think we know is:

There is overwhelming evidence that the universe has expanded from a much denser, hotter state, to a much less dense, cooler state. And whilst that happened, galaxies formed.

That's pretty much it, in a nutshell.

Our mathematical model of this works well at making testable predictions, but if we try to take it too far into the past, we reach a point where infinities start falling out of the maths, and the universe exhibits singular behaviour. We assume our model breaks at that point.

And from that, we have all these protestations about impossibilities, and singularities containing the whole universe moving to a place whilst somehow having to hold the universe together. (?!)

Yes, we know. A universal singularity is a problem.

It is pretty much accepted across the board that having the whole universe "held together" in a point of zero size is impossible. Nobody would consider that seriously, as you have stretched our model too far back into the past, before the model even starts to describe time.

Just as Newtonian physics is correct, within its domain of applicability, but becomes inaccurate when high energies or velocities are involved, we know the same is true of the current model.

It works well from 380,000 years in, onwards.
Its pretty good all the way back to only 3 minutes in.
Things get a little more dodgy, earlier on.

10. Originally Posted by Neuntoter
Most of our scientist believe that our universe was once a singularity, which then started to expand in enourmous
speed. After few seconds of big bang, it explains quite well our observable universe but there is one major
problem - our mother singularity couldn't follow our laws of physics. It sounds easy to say that yep, that's
how it did. Any questions? But it actually has to more like turn our laws of physics up side down rather than
just ignore some of them. In nut shell, to even make it expand at all (lets forget inflation and over, or
even near light speeds) it would need a power greater than gravity caused by our whole universe to expand at all.
It doesn't sound so logical to me. One night i was thinking about that problem, and i asked: how could we
explain expanding without a singularity? i thought some minutes and finally i found a way for it, a way that
im still thinking of to be possible. Matter of universe came here from somewhere, little by little, so anti-
gravity could overpower the gravity caused by mass and density of matter. You might think that this is retarded,
universe has to be singularity and that's it. But has it? What really makes you think that our universe once
followed different laws of physics rather than following the same ones we see today, all the way from the start?
Let's continue, now we come to anti-gravity. We need a force to cause expanding, something that doesn't need
energy to work in they way we know energy does(Because of accelerating expansion). Kinda obivous answer was
angi-gravity, which has an opposite effect that gravity does. Obivous conclusion was that it has to be all
the time much, much greater power than gravity. Somehow i came to a suggestion: it might've got its power
from mass or anti-mass of our universe. Of course, if we left it that way, our universe would have left in
balance between gravity and antigravity in start, and it would never have expanded. I went little bit further
and thought our world as a hourglass, where upper chamber is the place where our matter came from and lower
chamber is our known universe. Hourglass has a constant weight, which refers to our anti-gravity, Sand refers
to matter. When matter first starts to flow in our universe, expanding will be many, many times greater
than we observe today, because there is just a little gravity to slow our constant expanding power down. Matter
continues to flow in and expanding slows down caused by gravity until all of the matter has flown in. After that,
Antigravity starts once again to overpower gravity because all matter is moving further away from each other.
So expanding is once again accelerating, and thats what we see today. What causes anti-gravity? maybe anti-matter,
void energy or dark energy, its up to the universe. This might sound just another theory for the start, but there
is one big thing i want point to. With this model, we would need no new laws of physics or law-breaking singularities,
and as you can see, it would fit perfectly on our inflation theory. No extra dimensions or other only mathematicly
possible weird theories that wont fit in anything that we see, just expanding 4-dimension universe, just as we see
it, explained all the way from te second zero.

Ps. What would have ever hold our universe in a singularity to the point it suddendly started to expand?
Dear Neuntotor!

About your thought(anti-mass, anti-gravity, bigbang...) , refer to my simulation. However, this idea is speculation. So you need carefully ~.

Birth of the Universe from Zero Energy State - Bigbang, negative energy,negative mass - YouTube

[ Birth of the Universe from the Zero Energy State ]

1)There was a pair creation of positive and negative energy in the early universe.

2)The total energy of universe is 0.
Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth et al. argued that gravitational potential energy is negative energy, and that such gravitational potential energy can offset all positive mass energy during a period of inflation.

3) The acceleration in the expansion of the universe observed suggests the existence of positive energy out of mass energy, and alternatively, it corresponds to what the overall gravitational potential energy of the universe has positive value, indicating that gravitational potential energy will not able to offset positive (mass) energy.

4) Nothing but the gravitational potential energy doesn’t completely offset mass energy. And for the birth of the universe from “nothing” and energy conservation at the birth of the universe, “negative mass”, which corresponds to “negative energy”, is needed.

5)The basic principle of physics of “lower state of energy is stable!” is wrong. So it should be modified to “lower state of energy as far as positive mass is concerned and higher state of energy as far as negative mass is concerned is stable!”.

6)“Transition to the energy level of minus infinity”, which was used to deny the existence of negative mass, did not occur, whereas a. Relativistic energy eq., b. Dirac eq., c. field equation existed, suggesting the existence of negative mass.

[ Void Structure results from~ ]

1)The presence of primitive void due to a pair annihilation of positive mass and negative mass.

2)The presence of void due to gravitational contraction between positive mass and repulsive effect between negative mass.

[ Birth and Expansion of the Universe from singular point(or domain) ]

1)Even though all the mass of the universe come together in one small area on Big Bang, it does not have the same density as the black hole due to offsetting of density between positive mass and negative mass. Therefore it can be expandable.

2)The law of motion of positive mass and negative mass naturally explains that “expansion after birth” is the essential characteristics of the universe.

3)The expansion of the universe takes place in the state of total rest mass energy of “0” and, clusters of galaxies and the void structure can be achieved.

4)Energy conservation and momentum conservation exists without giving the initial velocity, and expansion of the universe occurs.

5)It does not require any other force except already known force, gravity.

---Icarus2
==========
viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:0907.0015, Hypothesis of Dark Matter and Dark Energy with Negative Mass

11. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
[I wonder why people have these odd notions?
Those notions are called "thinking for yourself". They may be right, they may be wrong but they are infinitely preferable to not thinking for yourself.

All we think we know is:

There is overwhelming evidence that the universe has expanded from a much denser, hotter state, to a much less dense, cooler state. And whilst that happened, galaxies formed.

That's pretty much it, in a nutshell.
That is based on one interpretation of the redshift, and is commonly known as "putting all your eggs into one basket".

Our mathematical model of this works well at making testable predictions, but if we try to take it too far into the past, we reach a point where infinities start falling out of the maths, and the universe exhibits singular behaviour. We assume our model breaks at that point.

And from that, we have all these protestations about impossibilities, and singularities containing the whole universe moving to a place whilst somehow having to hold the universe together. (?!)
Even though a system of maths may have the wrong basis, if it works by pushing around known data, then it will still produce right answers.

Yes, we know. A universal singularity is a problem.
A bit of the same way the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 is a problem for many christians.

It is pretty much accepted across the board that having the whole universe "held together" in a point of zero size is impossible. Nobody would consider that seriously, as you have stretched our model too far back into the past, before the model even starts to describe time.

Just as Newtonian physics is correct, within its domain of applicability, but becomes inaccurate when high energies or velocities are involved, we know the same is true of the current model.
If we lived on a molten world where the lowest temperatures we have ever produced was 20.C, then we would look at steam which we have managed to cool to liquid water and note that as we cooled it below 100.C, it shrank in volume so we could do a graph from 100.C to 20.C and extend that so that at a point below 0.C it would shrink till it vanished entirely. we would not know it began expanding again at 4.C and changed into ice at 0.C so our theory though seemingly soundly based would be 100% wrong.

It works well from 380,000 years in, onwards.
Its pretty good all the way back to only 3 minutes in.
Things get a little more dodgy, earlier on.
So who is to say we are right before that point? Maybe the universe did not start with a singularity (of no size or tiny size) but started as lets say several light years across, or maybe it started with endless mass spouting out of a "small area" of space from "elsewhere" (multiverse) so that we do not have a problem with the first seconds, with a need for inflation, some kind of anti gravity energy or anything else equally unlikely. We have fundamental particles in a recognisable form which quickly became hydrogen and helium, etc.

12. Originally Posted by Cyberia
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
[I wonder why people have these odd notions?
Those notions are called "thinking for yourself". They may be right, they may be wrong but they are infinitely preferable to not thinking for yourself.
Thinking for oneself is fine. But one should also not dismiss grown knowledge just because it wasn't you that grew it. There are good reasons to accept theories, when they have been tested over and over again.
Originally Posted by Cyberia
Our mathematical model of this works well at making testable predictions, but if we try to take it too far into the past, we reach a point where infinities start falling out of the maths, and the universe exhibits singular behaviour. We assume our model breaks at that point.

And from that, we have all these protestations about impossibilities, and singularities containing the whole universe moving to a place whilst somehow having to hold the universe together. (?!)
Even though a system of maths may have the wrong basis, if it works by pushing around known data, then it will still produce right answers.
This is wrong. Example: Newton's law of gravity - It's mathematical foundation is well defined and works perfectly for many applications without even a hint that it might be incomplete. Nevertheless, it completely fails for phenomena like gravitational lensing and time dilation. The underlying math just does not apply in these circumstances. Remember, mathematics is a tool to investigate and describe phenomena in Nature and to support physical theories. It just cannot give you a result for which it was not made.
Originally Posted by Cyberia
Yes, we know. A universal singularity is a problem.
A bit of the same way the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 is a problem for many christians.
With one big difference: Christians still believe it and claim that they know despite the evidence, cosmologists admit that they don't know.
Originally Posted by Cyberia
It is pretty much accepted across the board that having the whole universe "held together" in a point of zero size is impossible. Nobody would consider that seriously, as you have stretched our model too far back into the past, before the model even starts to describe time.

Just as Newtonian physics is correct, within its domain of applicability, but becomes inaccurate when high energies or velocities are involved, we know the same is true of the current model.
If we lived on a molten world where the lowest temperatures we have ever produced was 20.C, then we would look at steam which we have managed to cool to liquid water and note that as we cooled it below 100.C, it shrank in volume so we could do a graph from 100.C to 20.C and extend that so that at a point below 0.C it would shrink till it vanished entirely. we would not know it began expanding again at 4.C and changed into ice at 0.C so our theory though seemingly soundly based would be 100% wrong.
You obviously don't know what a theory is. In your example, the theory is not wrong, it just does not apply to the range for which it was not made.
Originally Posted by Cyberia
It works well from 380,000 years in, onwards.
Its pretty good all the way back to only 3 minutes in.
Things get a little more dodgy, earlier on.
So who is to say we are right before that point? Maybe the universe did not start with a singularity (of no size or tiny size) but started as lets say several light years across, or maybe it started with endless mass spouting out of a "small area" of space from "elsewhere" (multiverse) so that we do not have a problem with the first seconds, with a need for inflation, some kind of anti gravity energy or anything else equally unlikely. We have fundamental particles in a recognisable form which quickly became hydrogen and helium, etc.
Exactly. This is what we are trying to say all the time. We just don't know. The cosmolgical concept behind the BBT does not contain a real singularity. It could just be a mathematical artefact.

13. Originally Posted by Cyberia
That is based on one interpretation of the redshift, and is commonly known as "putting all your eggs into one basket".
I'm not sure if you are simply really ignorant or flat out lying here. Standard cosmology is not based on one interpretation of redshift. Additionally, other sources of redshift as the origin of the redshift we observe are investigated quite often. Effectively, every time a type Ia supernova is recorded and analyzed, it tests different sources of redshift.

14. (I just got thrown off The Science Forum for writing like this. I am here as a punishment.)

The galaxies are indeed moving away from each other, and wonderfully swiftly, too.

To avoid getting the whole universe into our speculation, let us consider two adjacent galaxies, Galaxy East and Galaxy West.

There is a humonguous space between them.

And that space is rather thinly populated with matter.

Let us speculate that maybe one particle (quark? electron? proton?) per cubic meter.

Now, the resident particles are not at rest. They move. They have energy. Or, from a certain point of view, they ARE energy.

They are going in random directions. Some of them are going more or less west and some east. Most of them are going someplace else.

Take some going west: Eventually they may be pulled by gravity into collision with stars, planets or other sky-thingies in Galaxy West.

Now, a quark hitting a star does not impart much momentum to it, but they come in bunches and bunches, and they keep coming for millions and hundreds of millions of years.

Likewise the particles going east, may hit something in Galaxy East.

The galaxies move apart due to the pressure of the random movement of particles between them.

(Also the accretion disks accrete and the accumulation of this stuff adds up over galactic time.)

There you have it. A universe all moving apart at escape velocity with new stars and galaxies created in between the old ones -- and never having been born from a singularity.

15. Originally Posted by Glenn Jacobs
(I just got thrown off The Science Forum for writing like this. I am here as a punishment.)
(I have commented on some of these points there.)

16. Originally Posted by Glenn Jacobs
The galaxies move apart due to the pressure of the random movement of particles between them.
Except that is of course not what happens at all, because the local movement of these galaxies is entirely negligible when it comes to cosmological scales. What we see is all objects receding from all other objects; and not just randomly, but following a well defined distance-redshift law. The further away they are, the faster they recede. We observe objects at redshifts of z > 7.0, which corresponds to apparent recession velocities of several times the speed of light. So you are trying to tell us that very distant galaxies actually move at superluminal speeds due to particles randomly bumping into them ?? Right

I should mention here that it is observational fact that the observed redshifts are not due to local movement at all - that can be inferred from magnitude-redshift comparisons. See here for details : http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808.pdf. I suggest you study this document very carefully instead of vomitting meaningless nonsense all over this forum; it is quite obvious from your few posts here that you are completely ignorant of even basic physics ( let alone the finer points of cosmology ), while at the same time self-deluded enough to think yourself otherwise.

If you have genuine questions, then ask, and we will be happy to answer. On the other hand, trying to pass off verbal diarrhoea as some sort of science won't work here, or anywhere else for that matter.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement