Big bang was not the beginning of time

[Avinash]

I was very happy to read this. Often times I have read that big bang was the beginning of time and therefore we should not ask what happened before big bang, because there was no 'before'. But, it never seemed believable.

 

 

According to two physicists (from Cambridge and Princeton universities), there is neither a beginning nor an end of time. They say the current model of the universe is flawed.

 

That model starts with the beginning of time and the so-called Big Bang. The universe then cools and expands, and then in the distant future it will cool to the point when no stars are formed and normal matter breaks down. But the expansion is speeding up, and the current model does not seem to adequately explain why this is happening.

 

The scientists claim their new model can account for this and other things that are difficult to explain. They say the universe is undergoing an endless series of Big Bangs, expansions, contractions and big crunches. There is no end of time and no need to define what existed before the universe was born.

[Avinash]

The theory proposes that, in each cycle, the universe refills with hot, dense matter and radiation, which begins a period of expansion and cooling like the one of the standard big bang picture. After 14 billion years, the expansion of the universe accelerates, as astronomers have recently observed. After trillions of years, the matter and radiation are almost completely dissipated and the expansion stalls. An energy field that pervades the universe then creates new matter and radiation, which restarts the cycle.

 

 

 

[gHari]

In one of my astronomy courses in the late sixties they were already professing that the Big-Bang-Bang-Bang-Bhang! theory is what really happens.

 

It all confirms that science is all but laughable. It is unfortunate the way our arrogant minds trivialize it all, so we neglect the inconceivable nature of it all and then become bedazzled with mundane earthly affairs as though this world of concrete and pavement were the all-in-all.

[Avinash]

Often it becomes necessary in science that we have to make lots of assumptions otherwise we can't develop theories. But the problem is that often scientists make assumptions even if not really needed. This is what happened with big bang also. I remember having argued with many people if big bang was the beginning of time. My position was that big bang, if it happened, was just an event in universe and it could not be the very beginning. Definitely it was not the beginning of time. Most of Physics books that talk of big bang claim that big bang was the beginning of time itself. Now the question is, "Why did scientists believe that big bang was the beginning of time? Are there any experimental results that indicate this?". The answer is that there is absolutely no experimental result that shows that big bang is the beginning of time. In fact, big bang was a point of singularity. According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, all the currently known laws of Physics break down at singularity. So, no laws of Physics could tell what happened before big bang. They could not even tell if there was any 'before'. Then Physicists decided just to consider big bang as the birth of the universe. So far it was OK. But some went on to the extent of saying that there was absolutely nothing before big bang. Big bang was the beginning of time itself and therefore it is meaningless to ask what was before big bang because there was no 'before'. Many other physicists adopted this idea. This is very bad tendency. If we do not have anyway to know the answer to something, it is far better to accept that we do not know rather than making some assumption and thinking that assumption to be perfect and building theories after theories on that assumption.

 

This new model is very recent. So, scientists are still not sure if big bang should be considered as the beginning of everything including time. My knowledge of science is very little. I do not know what more discoveries will tell, but my personal feelings are that universe existed even before big bang and that big bangs have been happening and will keep on happening.

[Avinash]

In fact, the quasi steady state theory that I mentioned once in Spiritual Discussions forum seems to be a very strong candidate. This answers many questions that can not be answered satisfactorily by the big bang model.

[Guest guest]

the "new theory,is hardly new.

A series of bangs and crunches,is old hat,and ridiculous.

The entire theory of a singularity,expanding,then crunching,is foolish.

Read "the big bang never happened",although the author is an atheist,he is a physicist who exposes the hoax of the big bang theories.

He starts with the history of cosmological ideas,throughout the centuries,then shows the history of the "big bang",he shows the political aspects of the current theory,and the scientific inpossibility, and the constant invention of unknown entities,i.e,super strings,axions,dark energy,dark matter etc.,to try to explain away the inconsistancies of the big bang theory,as astronomers make newer and newer discoveries,making the big bang, theoretically impossible.

 

[Guest guest]

In the book i mentioned,the theory of our universes age is put in perspective.

We live in galaxy,a cluster of stars.

Our galaxy belongs to a cluster of galaxies.

That cluster,belongs to an even larger cluster,a supercluster!

There are many of these.

Gravity forms these clusters,the theory that the rate of the expanding universe is increasing,has been created to explain how these superclusters formed.

The galaxies are moving at a constant rate,at that rate, it would take hundreds of billions of years, for the superclusters to form.

There goes the big bang theory,out the window.

So they brought back Einsteins cosmological constant theory,revised.

They call it dark energy,there is zero proof that it exists.

It is simply a theoretical construct, to keep alive an impossible theory.

Einstein called this "dark energy",theory,the biggest blunder of his career,after later discoveries made it untennable.

 

[sid]

good theory !!! /images/graemlins/smile.gif i am not so much in astronomy but still

 

can any one let me know how many cycles of big bang had happen before this present state. ?

 

where did u got the 1 sigularity to give the 1st big bang ?

 

[Avinash]

can any one let me know how many cycles of big bang had happen before this present state. ?

 

It is possible that there have been infinite no of such cycles of creation and destruction. Well, it is just a possibility.

 

where did u got the 1 sigularity to give the 1st big bang ?

 

If there have been infinite big bangs, then there was no 1st big bang. If not, then the answer depends on whether time existed before the first big bang. If not, then the question what caused the first big bang does not arise (there was nothing before the first big bang) to have caused it.

If time existed, then there was infinite time before the first big bang. Anything could have happened in infinite time.

[I_love_krishna_]

I read that the modern day science is looking into Quantum Physics for the knowledge of the basic underlying network that maintains the universe.

 

If you know anything about this, could you kindly answer me what "String theory" is?

[Avinash]

Relativistic quantum field theory works very well to describe the observed behaviours and properties of elementary particles. But the theory works well only when gravity is so weak that it can be neglected.

 

Particle theory works only when we pretend gravity doesn't exist.

 

General relativity works only when we assume that that quantum mechanics is not needed in our description of Nature.

 

String theory is believed to close this gap.

 

[I_love_krishna_]

What are they teaching us in schools!

 

There is gravity everywhere in this universe... how do you pretend that it does not exist?

 

But isn't it true that some forces hold the particles together.. like the strong force which over comes gravity.

 

Or are you saying that the strong force and the rest of the forces that they teach us in schools are basically imaginary?

[Avinash]

It is true that gravity is there everywhere. But, we can ignore gravity when we are considering interactions between elementary particles. This is because the force of gravitation between these particles is very small compared to other kinds of forces.

 

I won't say that forces are imaginary. But, string theory tells us as to how those forces originate.

[Avinash]

Dear Sid,

 

Please read the posts in the thread "Time: Days of the future past?" in "Spiritual Discussions" forum.

 

[Guest guest]

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm

exploding the big bang

 

 

cosmomolgy and the big bang

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/cosmo.htm

 

the big bang never happened

http://nowscape.com/big-bang.htm

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/BBT.html

 

the case against the big bang

 

 

the case for plasma cosmology

http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/plasma.html

 

[Govindaram]

What about the Big Crunch Theory, I saw it in a documentry once, the scientist in question was well smug about it,

 

and didn't scientists say the Univerce was not expanding, and then changed their minds and said it was really,

 

isn't the Sun meant to 'die' in 5 billion years time,

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don't know that much about astronamy and the beginning of the universe, but what i do know* is that if there was a sigularity, of inifinate density, shouldn't that mean infinate gravity? So shouldn't everything be attracted with an inifnate force, and shouldn't we accelerate to an infinate speed towards the singularity?

 

*know is probably the wrong word, what i mean is, what i have been taught.

 

____________________

 

Could it be that if black holes are made, they should eventually attract everything towards them, including each other, and so eventually the universe would be nothing but one black hole? If so, this black hole could account for the Big bang bang bang theory, as it is believed by many that the big bang started with a singularity...? This process could repeat itself an infinate number of times... but if time fails to exist in a black hole... and all matter is eventually sucked into one... then would time stand still?

[Guest guest]

Sorry about the other title, I forgot what it was...

[Avinash]

if there was a sigularity, of inifinate density, shouldn't that mean infinate gravity? So shouldn't everything be attracted with an inifnate force, and shouldn't we accelerate to an infinate speed towards the singularity?

 

Often articles talk of the beginning of big-bang as a point of infinite gravity. But, it is just an approximation. It could not be infinite in the strict sense of the term "infinite" because Quantum Physics prevents it.

 

Could it be that if black holes are made, they should eventually attract everything towards them, including each other, and so eventually the universe would be nothing but one black hole?

 

Only things which are inside the event horizon of a black hole will be pulled to the centre of the black hole. But, things outside the event horizon need not have this fate.

Moreover, the universe is really a black hole.

 

but if time fails to exist in a black hole... and all matter is eventually sucked into one... then would time stand still?

 

Let us see what general theory of relativity says about time inside a black hole. Let us assume that you are inside a black hole and just assume, for the sake of discussion, that you are surviving. I am outside the black hole. According to me (who is outside the black hole) no changes are happening inside the black hole. So, I will feel as if time has stood still inside the black hole. But, it does not mean that you will not feel any change of time. You will very well feel the passage of time.

[Govindaram]

"So, I will feel as if time has stood still inside the black hole. But, it does not mean that you will not feel any change of time. You will very well feel the passage of time."

 

In Goloka Vrindavana time is faster/slower??

 

Compared to the Earth..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

There is no time in Goloka Vrindavana, the only reason there are days and nights in goloka vrindaban is due to the maya of the lord.

 

There is no time there, people don't age, they all stay as 12 year old boys and girls... unless they are partaking in the parent rasa... then I think they will be older, but you know this already prabhu.

 

I_love_krishna_

 

[Guest guest]

This makes lots of sense.I was speaking to a philosophy professor, Dr Carlin, speaking about whether time ever began or if it ever ended.To me, it never began and it will ever end. It only make sense. It is just like a circle. It does not a beginning nor an end. Everything concrete to us is just a standard. Everything has infinity within it. For example, something can measure 2in or it can measure 2.000000....infinentely.

[akshar]

What a load of rubbish! The silly old man who made up the theory of the 'big bang' must have been on drugs. I wonder if he has heard of god. How can anyone think that. It's like saying god threw a couple of nukes into space and denotonated them. What a laugh. It's a theory just used for buisness and fame.

[akshar]

The sun cannot die because he is Surya-Narayan (god)