The theory that there are an infinite number of big bangs

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

The theory that there are an infinite number of big bangs

Postby thinker4life on July 4th, 2017, 3:54 pm 

I have long (over 25 years) theorized that the universe didn't begin at the big bang. I'm curious to hear pro/cons supporting or opposing the theory. Let me explain what I mean and why I have come to that conclusion.

Most science points to a single big bang... Which is an accumulation of a finite amount of mass that happened uniquely one time in a universe of infinite space. While this may explain our observable universe, the idea of having finite mass and infinite space makes less sense to me than the idea of having a universe with infinite mass and infinite space... So my theory goes like this...

I theorize that there is infinite space, infinite mass, and infinite time... Time/space/mass and the universe have always existed and will always exist. The idea that dimensions are infinite makes more sense to me than that they be finite, because if they are finite what's at the end of the dimension?

In this infinite space, I theorize that mass attracts itself to other mass up until such a time as the mass becomes so large that it explodes, which is what we see as the big bang... but I hypothesize that if you zoom out on the universe there are other big bangs that have happened throughout the universe, and that eventually the matter from different big bangs will interact, and be attracted to each other until they create a large enough mass that they explode into a big bang again.

Why do I think this is probable? The idea that the universe has infinite space and finite mass is odd -- Who defined how much mass was in the universe, or how was it defined? Wouldn't it make more sense that it be infinite? Also if there really was only one big bang, then our existence and self-awareness is something that could only happened around this single point in the time-continuum... it couldn't have happened before the big bang exploded...

I also understand that some people claim time itself began at the big bang... I don't understand how that's defensible and would love for someone to explain the theory. If time itself didn't exist before the big bang how did the big bang come into existence, since time didn't even exist then... Time has to pass for an event to happen, so I consider time the 4th dimension as infinite and independent of the configuration of mass-energy in the universe.

If something I say is universally or near-universally refuted, I'd love sources that point to that... I'd also like both positive feedback and constructive criticism of this theory... If this is a well established theory with many supporters already I'd love someone to point me to it, my quick google searching didn't come up with anything though I have heard this theory exists elsewhere.

I'm new to this forum, so bear with me if this isn't an appropriate post... just trying to get feedback on a long-time theory of mine.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: The theory that there are an infinite number of big bang

Postby Dave_Oblad on July 4th, 2017, 4:33 pm 

Hi thinker4life,

Welcome to the Forums.

You have shined a Light on one aspect of Cosmology that is very troubling. That all the Mass and Energy we see today existed at the first moment of time compressed into a single point. This is due to a Science cornerstone that Energy and Matter can not be created, just converted. On the other hand, Science is at least toying with the concept that Virtual particles can pop in and out of existence.

One misconception you hold is that Time and Space pre-existed the Big Bang. The correct view is that the Big Bang was the literal creation of Volumetric Space and the progression we call Time. Your version tries to avoid the issue of "Where did Matter/Energy" originate by use of infinite Regression. It hides from the obvious question of where did the First Universe come from?

Also, we note that the Expansion of the Universe is accelerating, so it appears very unlikely that any force can exist that will collapse it in some big Crunch for repeated cycles. So, from our point of view, we exist in the Last Universe, that will die from Expansion and Cold.

You can see my Image in the upper Right. Under that is View Blog (3). Click it to see some of my Posts here on this site. Click the one called "Mathematical Universe". It's my premise (and many others) that our Universe is purely Mathematical. A Virtual Universe composed solely from Math/Logic/Geometry. That we find our Existence within the solution of an Equation. This should help you to understand the real meaning of "Time".

I made this List of Posts so I don't have to start from scratch for every new person that passes by. Give a read if you have the time. It might click with you.

Best Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: The theory that there are an infinite number of big bang

Postby thinker4life on July 4th, 2017, 8:24 pm 

Dave_Oblad » July 4th, 2017, 3:33 pm wrote:Hi thinker4life,

Welcome to the Forums.

You have shined a Light on one aspect of Cosmology that is very troubling. That all the Mass and Energy we see today existed at the first moment of time compressed into a single point. This is due to a Science cornerstone that Energy and Matter can not be created, just converted. On the other hand, Science is at least toying with the concept that Virtual particles can pop in and out of existence.

One misconception you hold is that Time and Space pre-existed the Big Bang. The correct view is that the Big Bang was the literal creation of Volumetric Space and the progression we call Time. Your version tries to avoid the issue of "Where did Matter/Energy" originate by use of infinite Regression. It hides from the obvious question of where did the First Universe come from?

Also, we note that the Expansion of the Universe is accelerating, so it appears very unlikely that any force can exist that will collapse it in some big Crunch for repeated cycles. So, from our point of view, we exist in the Last Universe, that will die from Expansion and Cold.

You can see my Image in the upper Right. Under that is View Blog (3). Click it to see some of my Posts here on this site. Click the one called "Mathematical Universe". It's my premise (and many others) that our Universe is purely Mathematical. A Virtual Universe composed solely from Math/Logic/Geometry. That we find our Existence within the solution of an Equation. This should help you to understand the real meaning of "Time".

I made this List of Posts so I don't have to start from scratch for every new person that passes by. Give a read if you have the time. It might click with you.

Best Regards,
Dave :^)


Thanks Dave for your reply. To me the idea that all mass and energy existed before the concept of time existed, and that time came into existence along with an explosion, seems probabilistically very unlikely to me. Suppose for proof by contradiction that that is true. What existed before the big bang happened? What triggered it to occur? Why did it happen at that particular time and not a million years prior or later? If there are good answers to these questions I'd be interested to hear them.

I don't think I hid the idea of where the first universe came from, I think and hope I addressed it openly... My hypothesis is that there was no "first universe" -- the universe has simply always existed and will always exist. It is infinite and eternal. If space is infinite, why can't time be? It seems the more logical conclusion rather than saying there was a singularity. While I appreciate your sharing your opinion about what is "right" I would suggest that science has been wrong about things where there was consensus many times, and there is some (albeit unlikely) chance that actually *I* am "right" and that those who believe in the singular big bang theory are wrong. I'm open to being wrong myself, but I've given what I think are logical reasons for what I believe, and am looking for some convincing argument to think otherwise, or to convince people that I have a convincing argument for what I believe. Either way my goal is to find objective truth. Either way I will not blindly follow what current science says when it goes against my better judgement, until someone can make an argument that is convincing that they are right.

I'm not sure you read my post carefully, because I didn't say there is a "force" that would collapse a singularity big bang... I am hypothesizing that there are multiple big bangs, and that the mass from nearby big bangs will eventually run into each other, accumulate, and create another big bang. The forces at work are the very laws of physics we know and observe, just one level more meta than we think about them today.

If you believe the universe to be purely mathematical, my guess is that you're a determinist... is that right? If so I'd like to share a paper I wrote that I believe disproves determinism, and shows that there is more to the universe than just mathematics. I'd appreciate your critical eye on it.

Kind regards,
Garrett
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: The theory that there are an infinite number of big bang

Postby Watson on July 4th, 2017, 11:26 pm 

Hi Garret, welcome.
I figured I'd reply to the OP with a first impression before I read on to what you and Dave are thinking, so sorry if I act like I haven't read it. I will after these thoughts.
First I think a finite mass is a good thing. More mass seems good, even necessary for the modeling to work, but infinite mass would be problematic. Wouldn't it mean the Universe is solid?
Now, usually science finds a problem, determines the solution and the outcome is a greater understanding. I'm not sure what the problem was that this theory explains? If the initial state is the problem, of what was there before the BB, it only changes the question to what was there before the many BB. And the infinite mass is there to explain the many BB cycling, but the whole thing doesn't really seem to be justified/grounded in science.
It sounds like a bit BB-Crunch, many worlds, bubble universe ideas. The same questions are where does it happen, and what was there before it happened.
Ok, let us read?
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4387
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: The theory that there are an infinite number of big bang

Postby Dave_Oblad on July 4th, 2017, 11:58 pm 

Hi thinker4life,

In a short while, Andromeda and the Milky Way Galaxies will collide. It will mess up the structure of both Galaxies but will not combine into some big black hole. The Distances between Stars means there will be very few actual collisions. I mention this because the debris from 2 Big Bangs would be so dispersed, that there is no chance of a Gravitational coalescence to produce another Big Bang.

Yes, I'm a Determinist because Math/Logic can not produce Randomness. I have no problem with Pseudo-Randomness however. Measurements of the sub-atomic world will look random because it is impossible to take measurements with sufficient accuracy to see a cyclic pattern. We just don't have the Temporal Resolution required. So we have to use Probabilistic Math, which works fine but is often taken to infer the Universe has a random probabilistic element to it. For those that really understand Time, it becomes obvious you can not direct an influence at Now and expect it to be visible Later. Like: Drive along a road and make a gouge in it. Now look again and see if the gouge is still there. Nope.. the Gouge has fallen far behind.

But we are getting off track now.

My position is not Mainstream Science.. but I believe it is correct and will be adopted someday. The Universe has demonstrated that Energy/Matter can be produced from Nothing. It's only a matter of time until we figure out how to do it too. Maybe 4 decades away. Hope we don't weaponize it.. that will be the end of us.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: The theory that there are an infinite number of big bang

Postby DragonFly on July 5th, 2017, 12:05 am 

Hi Garret,

If one Bang happened then so can others, but don't let it be near my house. Bamm! Oh, that was a firework.

Seriously, one needs a realm/arena/place for a'bang to bang from. You can't get something from 'Nothing'; 'Nothing' cannot even be meant in any way; existence has no opposite; it is ever.

So, there has to be an Eternal Basis, no choice, no option, which Basis looks to be tiny since it can't have any parts. It thus cannot be made and it cannot go away; it is unbreakable and unmakeable, deathless and ungenerated. No possible infinite regress of more things within things.

I can't grant infinite extent, though, for it can't be capped and thus cannot be had as an amount. I can give out boundless, such as the surface of a sphere.

There are about 2x10**76 particles in our finite universe, as 2x10**9 annihilated in matter/anti-matter meetings since there are 10**9 photons now for every proton.

I can't grant infinite density either (or any kind of actual infinite), for then the Bang thing could absorb any amount and never run out of any 'inward' and so could never have to implode 'outward'.

Something like a wave, being a simple, continuous function, could be the Basis, and though many waves can pass through another and have a very lightness of being, they are still a something, albeit but wisps, and so perhaps a really heck of a lot of them congregated, as a whole potential universe's worth, but reached the density limit, finally, and then Banged out, this density limit being something like 10**85 waves within waves.

No one really knows much more; have to wait for better gravity wave analysis.

Sorry about no infinite. What is space, then? It is just the stuff in it and so it really has no 'it', but "space" just a convenient way of speaking.

Einstein, too, of course, has no 'Nothing' and so all is continuous field; particles would be field quanta. Or, there are little, really discreet monads, which serve just about like a continuum would.

Virtual particles as quantum fluctuations could be as a kind of sub-time when nothing progresses for some while and there is just "noise". Matter didn't came out of the Bang with regular/random spacing but appears to be the fluctuations writ large across the universe, due to inflation.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: The theory that there are an infinite number of big bang

Postby DragonFly on July 5th, 2017, 12:14 am 

Dave_Oblad » July 4th, 2017, 10:58 pm wrote:Measurements of the sub-atomic world will look random because it is impossible to take measurements with sufficient accuracy to see a cyclic pattern.


Or that, due to entanglement, our measurements would have to take the whole universe into account; however, it does seem that an Eternal with no beginning would have to be random, given no input to it, yet after that one case be deterministic.

Dave_Oblad » July 4th, 2017, 10:58 pm wrote:The Universe has demonstrated that Energy/Matter can be produced from Nothing.


'Nothing' has no arena within which to operate, as well as no anything, and no capability. Even if we grant that 'Nothing' has a capability to produce something, then this capability is a something and thus Nothing' was not had as said. The physicist's "Nothing" of so-called zero-point energy isn't really Zero.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: The theory that there are an infinite number of big bang

Postby thinker4life on July 5th, 2017, 7:44 am 

Watson » July 4th, 2017, 10:26 pm wrote:Hi Garret, welcome.
I figured I'd reply to the OP with a first impression before I read on to what you and Dave are thinking, so sorry if I act like I haven't read it. I will after these thoughts.
First I think a finite mass is a good thing. More mass seems good, even necessary for the modeling to work, but infinite mass would be problematic. Wouldn't it mean the Universe is solid?
Now, usually science finds a problem, determines the solution and the outcome is a greater understanding. I'm not sure what the problem was that this theory explains? If the initial state is the problem, of what was there before the BB, it only changes the question to what was there before the many BB. And the infinite mass is there to explain the many BB cycling, but the whole thing doesn't really seem to be justified/grounded in science.
It sounds like a bit BB-Crunch, many worlds, bubble universe ideas. The same questions are where does it happen, and what was there before it happened.
Ok, let us read?


Hi Watson,

There are different sizes of infinity. Infinity*100 is still infinite, but infinity * 100 is a slightly bigger infinity... So with mass and space, mass is infinite in my theory but space is a slightly bigger infinite, which is why the universe isn't solid.

The problem I'm describing is the origin of the universe... I'm hypothesizing that there wasn't one, that time, space, and mass are infinite. I think this hypothesis is much more logical and based in science than to say that the universe came from nothing and time as we know it didn't exist before the big bang. I explained in my initial post that if time didn't exist, how did the singularity occur as that action would have had to happen over a period of time (albeit a short one)... so if time literally didn't exist, what caused the big bang to occur? I don't see a good scientific defense for a singularity as the origin of the universe, but if you do I'd love to hear it.

Kind regards,
Garrett
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: The theory that there are an infinite number of big bang

Postby thinker4life on July 5th, 2017, 7:52 am 

Dave_Oblad » July 4th, 2017, 10:58 pm wrote:Hi thinker4life,

In a short while, Andromeda and the Milky Way Galaxies will collide. It will mess up the structure of both Galaxies but will not combine into some big black hole. The Distances between Stars means there will be very few actual collisions. I mention this because the debris from 2 Big Bangs would be so dispersed, that there is no chance of a Gravitational coalescence to produce another Big Bang.

Yes, I'm a Determinist because Math/Logic can not produce Randomness. I have no problem with Pseudo-Randomness however. Measurements of the sub-atomic world will look random because it is impossible to take measurements with sufficient accuracy to see a cyclic pattern. We just don't have the Temporal Resolution required. So we have to use Probabilistic Math, which works fine but is often taken to infer the Universe has a random probabilistic element to it. For those that really understand Time, it becomes obvious you can not direct an influence at Now and expect it to be visible Later. Like: Drive along a road and make a gouge in it. Now look again and see if the gouge is still there. Nope.. the Gouge has fallen far behind.

But we are getting off track now.

My position is not Mainstream Science.. but I believe it is correct and will be adopted someday. The Universe has demonstrated that Energy/Matter can be produced from Nothing. It's only a matter of time until we figure out how to do it too. Maybe 4 decades away. Hope we don't weaponize it.. that will be the end of us.

Regards,
Dave :^)


Hi Dave,

I suggest you read my paper on the proof of free will, I think I have disproven determinism, but if you find some flaw with it I'd be welcome to be proven wrong... So far nobody has. The short answer is that the universe is not solely consistent of math, there is also free will which is a non-deterministic force that acts in the universe to shape it. I personally believe there is randomness as well, though I haven't proven it, and by disproving determinism I think I've opened the door for you to consider that randomness may exist as well.

I recognize you may not be convinced right away - these are deep seated beliefs and as I say in my paper I was once a determinist too, but I'd ask you to try to read with an open mind that there may be a logical, rational explanation that shows the laws of physics are not the only force shaping our reality.

Here's a link to my paper:
goo.gl/VnSTRN

How can you say with confidence that if there are multiple big bangs that the mass that is the offshoot of those big bangs will never be attracted to each other? Eg - what are you using for justification of this statement? It seems unintuitive to me... keep in mind it may not be that 2 big bangs are the only overlap, it could be the resulting mix of mass from n big bangs...
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017



Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 8 guests