Physicist explores the possibility of vestiges of a universe previous to the Big Bang

November 28, 2017 by Peter Moon
Physicist assumes the possibility of vestiges of an Universe previous to the Big Bang
Physicist publishes paper in General Relativity and Gravitation proposing to eliminate need for cosmological spacetime singularity and arguing that the current expansion phase was preceded by contraction. Credit: NASA / CXC / M. Weiss

The Big Bang theory is the best known and most accepted explanation for the beginning and evolution of the universe, but it is hardly a consensus among scientists.

Brazilian physicist Juliano Cesar Silva Neves is part of a group of researchers who dare to imagine a different origin. In a study recently published in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation, Neves suggests the elimination of a key aspect of the standard cosmological model: The need for a spacetime known as the Big Bang.

In raising this possibility, Neves challenges the idea that time had a beginning and reintroduces the possibility that the current was preceded by contraction. "I believe the Big Bang never happened," the physicist said, who works as a researcher at the University of Campinas's Mathematics, Statistics & Scientific Computation Institute (IMECC-UNICAMP) in Sao Paulo State, Brazil.

For Neves, the fast spacetime expansion stage does not exclude the possibility of a prior contraction phase. Moreover, the switch from contraction to expansion may not have destroyed all traces of the preceding phase.

The article, which reflects the work developed under the Thematic Project "Physics and geometry of spacetime," considers the solutions to the general relativity equations that describe the geometry of the cosmos and then proposes the introduction of a "scale factor" that makes the rate at which the universe is expanding depend not only on time but also on cosmological scale.

"In order to measure the rate at which the universe is expanding with the standard cosmology in which there's a Big Bang, a mathematical function is used that depends only on cosmological time," said Neves, who elaborated the idea with Professor Alberto Vazques Saa of IMECC-UNICAMP.

With the scale factor, the Big Bang itself, a cosmological singularity, ceases to be a necessary condition for the cosmos to begin universal expansion. A concept from mathematics that expresses indefiniteness, the term "singularity" was used by cosmologists to characterize the primordial cosmological state that existed 13.8 billion years ago, when all matter and energy were compressed into a state of infinite density and temperature, where the traditional laws of physics no longer apply.

The Big Bang Theory has its origins in the late 1920s when U.S. astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that almost all galaxies are moving away from each other at ever-faster velocities.

From the 1940s onward, scientists guided by Einstein's theory of general relativity constructed a detailed model of the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang. The model could lead to three possible outcomes: the infinite expansion of the universe at ever-higher velocities; the stagnation of the expansion in a permanent basis; or an inverted process of retraction caused by the gravitational attraction exerted by the mass of the universe, known as the Big Crunch.

"Eliminating the singularity or Big Bang brings back the bouncing universe on to the theoretical stage of cosmology. The absence of a singularity at the start of spacetime opens up the possibility that vestiges of a previous contraction phase may have withstood the phase change and may still be with us in the ongoing expansion of the universe," Neves said.

Neves conceptualizes that "bouncing cosmology" is rooted in the hypothesis that the Big Crunch would give way to an eternal succession of universes, creating extreme conditions of density and temperature in order to instigate a new inversion in the process, giving way to expansion in another bounce.

Vestiges of contraction

Black holes are the starting point of Neves' investigations into a theoretical "Bouncing ."

"Who knows, there may be remains of in the ongoing expansion that date from the prior contraction phase and passed intact through the bottleneck of the bounce," he said.

Consisting of the imploded core remaining after a giant star explodes, black holes are a kind of cosmic object whose core contracted to form a singularity, a point with infinite density and the strongest gravitational attraction known to exist. Nothing escapes from it, not even light.

According to Neves, a black hole is not defined by singularity, but rather by an event horizon, a membrane that indicates the point of no return from which nothing escapes the inexorable destiny of being swallowed up and destroyed by the singularity.

"Outside the event horizon of a regular black hole, there are no major changes, but inside it, the changes are deep-seated. There's a different spacetime that avoids the formation of a singularity."

The scale factor formulated by Neves and Saa was inspired by U.S. physicist James Bardeen. In 1968, Berdeen used a mathematical trick to modify the solution to the general relativity equations that describe black holes.

The trick consisted of thinking of the mass of a black hole not as a constant, as had previously been the case, but as a function that depends on the distance to the center of the black hole. With this change, a different black hole, termed a regular black hole, emerged from the solution to the equations. "Regular black holes are permitted, since they don't violate general relativity. The concept isn't new and has frequently been revisited in recent decades," said Neves.

Since the insertion of a mathematical trick into the equations could prevent the formation of singularities in regular black holes, Neves considered creating a similar artifice to eliminate the singularity in a regular bounce.

In modern science, a theory is worthless if cannot be verified, however beautiful and inspiring it may be. How do you test the hypothesis of a Big Bang that did not start with a singularity? "By looking for traces of the events in a contraction phase that may have remained in the ongoing expansion phase. The candidates include remnants of black holes from a previous phase of universal contraction that may have survived the bounce," Neves said.

Explore further: Stephen Hawking's Ph.D. thesis crashed its host website—here's what it says in simple terms

More information: J. C. S. Neves, Bouncing cosmology inspired by regular black holes, General Relativity and Gravitation (2017). DOI: 10.1007/s10714-017-2288-6

Related Stories

Theorists apply loop quantum gravity theory to black hole

May 31, 2013

(Phys.org) —Physicists Rodolfo Gambini and Jorge Pullin of University of the Republic in Montevideo, Uruguay, and Louisiana State University respectively, have applied the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) to a simplified ...

The golden anniversary of black-hole singularity

October 1, 2015

When a star collapses forming a black hole, a space-time singularity is created wherein the laws of Physics no longer work. In 1965 Sir Roger Penrose presented a theorem where he associated that singularity with so-called ...

Was the Big Bang just a black hole?

February 15, 2016

Fraser Cain "Asks a Spaceman" Dr. Paul Matt Sutter – why do we call the Big Bang a singularity, when we also call black holes singularities?

Recommended for you

94 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

peter_bilski
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
We used to think that almost 14 bln years of Universe existence that is very long time. But if we compare this to the length of the cycle- that our Universe must first expend, then collapse, to explode again. That perspective seems to be almost endless, from a human perspective. From this perspective, we are now on very early beginning at Universe evolution. Now let's imagine an entity that saw all this process and survived the collapse and the Big Bang, how boring must be to live and observe billion of billions of years....
mackita
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
Neves challenges the idea that time had a beginning and reintroduces the possibility that the current expansion was preceded by contraction. "I believe the Big Bang never happened," the physicist said
Then I don't understand, what he expects from cyclic cosmology, which is also based on Big Bang event - actually repeated one.
Merrit
3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
This article also brings up a good point about BH in that we don't know what it looks like on the other side of the event horizon. There is no reason they must be a point mass. They could be very similar to neutron stars for composition. Also, it could very well be that the mass inside the event horizon has converted to a different form of energy due to the extreme forces. Since we have no idea, their trick could be a very valid approximation of actual BHs
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2017
In raising this possibility, Neves challenges the idea that time had a beginning and reintroduces the possibility that the current expansion was preceded by contraction.

Doesn't this just move the goalpost? How does this eliminate the need for a 'beginning of time'?
Merrit
5 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
There is the possibility that there was no beginning. The universe has always existed and will continue to exist forever more. This is about as far fetched as all of the universe coming from nothing. These are also the only two possibilities, so one must be true.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2017
Meh. Clickbait, and two errors in the first two paragraphs of the article.

1. LCDM is, in fact, the consensus model, and features a Big Bang.
2. The Big Bang doesn't necessarily feature a singularity.

I stopped reading at that point. Do better, physorg.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
Now all Neves has to do is resolve the minor details of finding remnants, proving they fulfill his claim of being remnants and then proving all that actually supports his revival of the Rebounding Universes.

Oh yeah! And that all the accumulating evidence for a BB flat universe is wrong.

Ta daah! Such a simple matter, I'm sure. I expect a steady profusion of clickbait headlines proclaiming the end of GR and the supremacy of bouncing perpetual-motion cosmology.
Chris_Reeve
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2017
"The word 'scientist' means 'one who knows.' A scientist knows, for example, that mixing hydrogen and oxygen and striking a match is likely to prove noisy. But someone who knows that the universe came into being 15 billion years ago in a Big Bang is not a scientist but a credulist -- one who believes."

- Prof. John Billingsley
nwarden
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
Here's a new thought I've never heard before... imagine a multiverse that contains no universes. so really, a non-multiverse. the eternal nothingness. that nothing has ever existed and never will. I'm not trying to describe any plausible reality - obviously, our self-aware existence proves this wrong. pure fantasy. I just want to share, and make you imagine the idea. atheism/nihilism to the Nth degree? sorry to any schizophrenics etc. if this somehow triggers you. hahaha
nwarden
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2017
honestly, I'm a little triggered myself. should I finish my coffee?
Merrit
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
He isn't saying there wasn't a big bane of sorts, but just that it wasn't a singularity, a point mass. The big crunch would be similar to what happens when a star goes supernova. The core runs low on fuel and can no longer keep the surrounding mass at bay causing the star to collapse inwards. This initiates a massive burst of energy that rips the star apart in a supernova. Likewise, the event of a big crunch would be very similar but on a much larger scale.
szore88
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
I've been saying this since I was a kid; the universe oscillates, bang, contract, bang, contract, round and round it goes... It's obvious...
Dark_Solar
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
Curiouser and curiouser...along the same lines but perhaps just a bit off to one side, consider for a moment the possibility that the bounce hypothesis holds true and then take into account that the mathematics indicate that equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been formed at the instance of inflation...and yet we live in a universe of matter. Suppose just for a moment that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were formed at the start of inflation but rather than being uniformly distributed throughout the whole, positive and negative "super-particles" (for lack of a better, more accurate encompassing descriptive) crystallized from the singularity and, being equally influenced by gravity, fell toward each other until they began to collide, releasing enough energy to propel both masses in opposite directions and kick off inflation/expansion. Or something along those lines...frankly, I'm just rolling this thing around in my head right now.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2017
What's up with you Physorg-Skippys? You miss the Really-Skippy and want to try to entice him to come around? This one is ready made for some "proved correct along"'s.
Mimath224
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
Well, I like to think there was something around before the BB otherwise one allows 'something from nothing' and other ideas (if you see what I mean) to gain a foot hold. However, I don't mean say it was the 'bounce' theory either. I think the article is a bit weak(?). I sometimes wonder if it might have been a 'chaotic form' of matter that simply ended up in a more stable, less energetic, level...but that's no more than a thought and not intended as anything else.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
Not a winner.

Hereafter, we will refer to Brazilian physicist Juliano Cesar Silva Neves' proposal as:

"Chicken and the Egg" Cosmology.
Seeker2
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
Now all Neves has to do is resolve the minor details of finding remnants, proving they fulfill his claim of being remnants and then proving all that actually supports his revival of the Rebounding Universes.
Probably already found. I understand there are many humonguous black holes too big to be explained by accumulation of matter since our BB. Not buying the rebounding universe theory though. Only a major event in a larger U with no beginning, no end, and no boundaries.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
Well, I like to think there was something around before the BB otherwise one allows 'something from nothing' and other ideas (if you see what I mean) to gain a foot hold.
I'll go for something from nothing until they come up with a better idea.
Drjsa_oba
4 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
The bouncing universe option seems to have died with the accelerating universe expansion discovery. It may be a bit silly to revive that thought process without first conceiving of non accelerating expansion.

Correct that a black hole cannot contain a singularity which is nothing more than an end point like infinity, it is a mathematical construct.

With expansion accelerating one could consider that in billions of years to power of billions perhaps another Big Bang can occur in the now vacated space in such a way that bangs are recurring with no specific reason to suspect that there is only one.

Perhaps in some future universe two bangs occur in some kind of overlap. Maybe a new bang will start up tomorrow and overlap our current universe.
JustinWaters
not rated yet Nov 29, 2017
If the expansion of the universe is caused by the formation of black holes, then the universe would collapse again as the black holes evaporated.
tblakely1357
not rated yet Nov 29, 2017
I've read that it's elephants all the way down.
MarsBars
not rated yet Nov 29, 2017
I've read that it's elephants all the way down.

I thought it was alleged to be turtles all the way down.
del2
not rated yet Nov 29, 2017
I've read that it's elephants all the way down.

I thought it was alleged to be turtles all the way down.

You're not a Terry Pratchett fan, then?
milnik
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2017
What is in this subject completely out of range of consciousness?
It is astonishing that the entire scientific elite was "built from nothing" as their deity BB was created from nothing. How then can you - nothing, you can discuss about not what came from nothing. So you and BB are the same.
Do you know the discutors who are you in the universe and whether there are still those where you walk, even to the place of "birth" of your DIVINE = BB) ?.
And you have one of your Creator, and the question is whether he made a mistake when he did not incorporate any "sense that serves you as an understanding of who you are."
THE MOST IMPERATIVE GLOBE AND ZABLUDA IN HISTORY OF HUMANITY IS VERIFY IN BB !!
tallenglish
not rated yet Nov 29, 2017
What is so hard to admit the universe is cyclical - so the big bang is just a change in direction, if you look at time as complex with real and imaginary parts, it is just spinning. Since everything else inside the universe follows circular paths - why are we trying to explain everything with straight lines and triangles, rather than radius and and angle. Circular time (like Eulers circle) has no beginning or end and creates space within it .
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
Everybody has their own vision of cosmology. The pipe-dreams and the alcohol-fueled speculations swarm like locusts.

The hard part is gathering empirical evidence for any of our hypothesis. My own unsupported guesstimate is that the metauniverse is a pellucid, gelid-crystalline immutable chaos of proto-gravity. Infinite, eternal, unchanging.

But the Coyote God is a bitch. And the solidarity of endless ennui broke.

Causation for the what our limited imaginations call the Big Bang. Well, accidents happen!

Resulting in Matter for Electro-Magnetism, Weak & Strong Nuclear Forces. That's why, hundreds of GUTS later we still can't reconcile the Fundamentals.

However, General and Special Relativity still lead the pack ahead of all the wild-eyed crazies. Cause it's really hard to argue with the reality of thermonuclear weapons.

The Brane of our Universe has weak spots thru which the force of M-U Gravity leaks. To explain the phenomena of DM & DE-Inflation.
Merrit
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
My beef with the standard model is the part about the universe expanding and accelerating at that because their conclusion is not supported by the data. We made this assumption based on standard candles, a type of supernova, using brightness to determine distance and red shift to determine velocity relative to us. What we discovered was a linear relationship between distance and the speed at which distant objects are moving away from us. The error is in assuming this implies the universe is expanding. All this proves is that the matter in the universe is spreading out. This is exactly what you would expect after a big bane type explosion. Matter with similar velocities grouped together into galaxies and the rest is spreading out.
Merrit
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
Continued. As for acceleration they found the linear relationship starts breaking down at long distances where the red shift is increasing faster than distance. This, again, is as expected. Objects with higher red shifts are moving faster away from us, which means the distance between us is increasing faster which means light takes longer to reach us at a faster rate than an object moving slower. The actual distance and red shifts should be linear, but our observed distance is not linear due to the time it takes light to reach us here on earth. This apparent acceleration is merely an illusion.
Merrit
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
Continued. It could be the case that the universe is expanding and or accelerating, but we need actual proof for that. This could be done by observing the change in red shift of very distant objects. If no expansion or acceleration then distance objects red shifts should remain the same or slowly decrease if gravity is going to bring them back in. If the red shift is being driven by the expansion of spacetime then the red shift of distant objects should be increasing exponentially faster. It shouldn't be too difficult to determine.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2017
@rrwillsj it's important to remember that we do, in fact, have some pretty compelling evidence.

We have the universe itself open to our observation. When we look, we find galaxies in galaxy clusters arranged in filaments.

We can see the matter in the galaxies by looking both at the visible light from stars in the galaxies, and at the dust and gas and other objects in and around them in wavelengths from radio to gamma.

We can see cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) that's homogeneous and isotropic to better than 1 part in 50 million.

We can see the behavior of galaxies in clusters, and stars in galaxies, and this tells us there's more matter than we can see directly. Furthermore we can see gravitational lensing that's not accounted for by the matter we see directly.

We can see from supernova data that the rate of expansion slowed for the first 7 billion years that the universe existed, and then started accelerating.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2017
[contd]
We have the Standard Model of Particle Physics (not to be confused with the Standard Model of Cosmology or LCDM, which is currently a concordance model not nearly of the standing, level of acceptance, or predictive power of the SMPP) which tells us how the constituent particles in the universe can combine, except gravity, and what forces operate in the universe.

We have the General Relativity Theory, which describes the field theory of gravity, which we can add to the SMPP to describe, though for gravity only approximately, the operation of all forces in the universe that we have ever seen evidence for.

We have laboratories in which we have been doing experiments for thousands of years to test any ideas we come up with.

Do not undersell the power of science. Remember that the trappings of modern technological life have all come from it, from biology and medicine to cell phones, television, and jet aircraft. Science always works; other ways might or might not.
xinhangshen
1 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2017
Yes, the visible part of the universe should be in an expansion and contraction sequence because time is absolute which does not have beginning and end, while Einstein's relativity has been disproved both logically and experimentally. The most obvious fact disproving relativity is the absolute time shown by the universally synchronized clocks on the GPS satellites.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2017
Yes, the visible part of the universe should be in an expansion and contraction sequence because time is absolute
Time is not absolute. See relativity of simultaneity from Special Relativity Theory.

Einstein's relativity has been disproved both logically and experimentally.
By making statements like this you identify yourself as a #physicscrank. No experiment has "disproved" SRT. Ever. I challenge you to name one.

The most obvious fact disproving relativity is the absolute time shown by the universally synchronized clocks on the GPS satellites.
This is wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to start. Picking something at random, without a local clock synchronization GPS is impossible, but the local sync is not an absolute standard. It's local to Earth's net gravity field. The Moon and Sun are included in this. GPS references against quasars. https://www.space...tem.html
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2017
According to Laura Mersini Universe looks like giant fractal quantum fluctuations traveling from place to place. IMO Universe is random infinite cloud of space-time curvatures and we are Boltzman brains, which are observing it. Our perspective is thus similar to perspective of waterstriders observing randomly undulating water surface with its own ripples. This perspective makes tiny and large fluctuations negligible and the rest of them less or more spherical. The Big bang didn't happen - Hubble red shift is product of light scattering with vacuum fluctuations. Instead of it, the Universe is filled by multiple "small bangs", representing the formation of galaxies.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2017
I asked for an experiment, @mak. Not a blog post.

One experiment. Repeatable at other labs by other experimenters.

Just one.

Not a bunch of spam. Not a bunch of off-topic material. Not a bunch of speculation.

An experiment. As claimed. If you can't support the claim you have nothing relevant to say.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2017
You can't experiment with Universe, but we already have many observations: 1, 2, 3, 4, ..
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
You observe experiments, too.

Data is data. If you're arguing against data you're a #physicscrank.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2017
So you got the data - now you can try to argue against it... :-)
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
"Physicist publishes paper in General Relativity and Gravitation proposing to eliminate need for cosmological spacetime singularity and arguing that the current expansion phase was preceded by contraction"

It seems contraction would include merging black holes which if they are big enough and matter/antimatter opposites would start an annihilation process like the inflation process beginning the BB. The contact point where the black holes merged would technically be a singularity. No need to eliminate this singularity because you have to have it to have a merger.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
Correct that a black hole cannot contain a singularity which is nothing more than an end point like infinity, it is a mathematical construct.
In my mind a pure black hole is a singularity in spacetime energy density. An actual real vacuum. Zero zilch nada spacetime energy density. Quantized matter loses its internal energy inside the black hole because the atomic energy idensity inside quantized matter is much too high to be remain constricted in its volume against the low pressure area inside the black hole. This internal energy is then expelled back into spacetime. It's like a supernova in slow motion. Anyway I wouldn't be dismissing singularities as some mathematical abstractions.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
@mak, you're the one arguing against.

Just sayin'.
xinhangshen
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2017

The most obvious fact disproving relativity is the absolute time shown by the universally synchronized clocks on the GPS satellites.
This is wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to start. Picking something at random, without a local clock synchronization GPS is impossible, but the local sync is not an absolute standard. It's local to Earth's net gravity field. The Moon and Sun are included in this. GPS references against quasars. https://www.space...tem.html


Is it what you mean: if there is gravitation, then all clocks can be synchronized? Is the gravitation makes clocks able to be synchronized? Obviously not! Don't argue! The fact is: no matter in what situation, clocks can be universally synchronized, i.e., time is absolute and relativity is wrong.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
Is it what you mean: if there is gravitation, then all clocks can be synchronized?
No. Try again. If you knew more about SRT you wouldn't have claimed I said this. And by introducing gravity you've moved from SRT, where you made your error, to GRT; if you don't get SRT, there's absolutely no way you're going to get GRT.
Merrit
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
@xin GPS satellites are moving very fast which makes their clocks tick slower due to time dilation, but they are further away from Earth than we are which makes their clocks tick faster than us due to gravitational time dilation. This second factor is the stronger of the two so clocks tick faster on GPS satellites then they do on earth. In order for them to be useful, however, they need to show the same time as the ones that are down here on earth. To compensate, clocks on GPS satellites are made to tick slower counter acting the effects of time dilation. GPS satellites actually prove relatively.
xinhangshen
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2017
Is it what you mean: if there is gravitation, then all clocks can be synchronized?
No. Try again. If you knew more about SRT you wouldn't have claimed I said this. And by introducing gravity you've moved from SRT, where you made your error, to GRT; if you don't get SRT, there's absolutely no way you're going to get GRT.

It is clear that you just want to use gravitation as an excuse to mess up the argument. STR claims that clocks can never be universally synchronized, i.e., even without gravitation and acceleration, clocks can't be synchronized. How can you claim that the field with gravitation can get all clocks universally synchronized?
xinhangshen
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2017
@xin GPS satellites are moving very fast which makes their clocks tick slower due to time dilation, but they are further away from Earth than we are which makes their clocks tick faster than us due to gravitational time dilation. This second factor is the stronger of the two so clocks tick faster on GPS satellites then they do on earth. In order for them to be useful, however, they need to show the same time as the ones that are down here on earth. To compensate, clocks on GPS satellites are made to tick slower counter acting the effects of time dilation. GPS satellites actually prove relatively.

You don't understand what relative time means. In your statement, it seems that clocks on the GPS satellites due to motion are absolutely slow relative too all reference systems, while STR claims that clocks only moving relative to the observer are slow. Since moving is relative, clocks on the ground should also be slow relative to observers on satellites.
xinhangshen
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2017
Now let's have a look at the symmetric twin paradox. Two twins made separate space travels in the same velocity and acceleration relative to the earth all the time during their entire trips but in opposite directions. According to special relativity, each twin should find the other twin's clock ticking more slowly than his own clock during the entire trip due to the relative velocity between them because acceleration did not have any effect on kinematic time dilation in special relativity. But when they came back to the earth, they found their clocks had exact the same time because of symmetry. Thus, there is a contradiction which has disproved special relativity. This thought experiment demonstrates that relativistic time is not our physical time and can never be materialized on physical clocks.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
DS, I appreciate your commentary expressing the scientific communities reasoning and evidence against my speculations.

The problem I am having is that the experiments keep failing to find the base particles (baryons? quarks?) for either Gravity or DM/DE.

It is my suspicion that there is no such structure to those phenomena. Not even down to the Planck Level. That our universe is a lot more a random wreckage of incoherent and conflicting forces.

That all we see here and now is temporary phenomena. And by temporary I mean only 13+ gigayears. Our bad luck to live in the infancy of the cosmos. It will be much more interesting a hundred billion years or so from now. And, eventually, over trillions of years disintegrate back into the frozen chaos of the meta-universe.

Actually I wouldn't mind being proven wrong. Cause if I am right no anti-gravity (no null, contra, etc.) and that time is a one-way trip into the future of now.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2017
@xiang, you're the one who brought up gravity.
Is it what you mean: if there is gravitation, then all clocks can be synchronized?
Sorry, I have no time for trolls. Good bye.
xinhangshen
3 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
@xiang, you're the one who brought up gravity.
Is it what you mean: if there is gravitation, then all clocks can be synchronized?
Sorry, I have no time for trolls. Good bye.


If you don't have time for debate, please keep quiet!
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2017
I get it. Let's have a debate! Beats watching wrestling anyway. Maybe.
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2017
DS, I appreciate your commentary expressing the scientific communities reasoning and evidence against my speculations.

It is my suspicion......


And there you have it. Of course - speculation, delusion, and suspicion must be the right path.....
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2017
The problem I am having is that the experiments keep failing to find the base particles (baryons? quarks?) for either Gravity or DM/DE.
While this is a valid, if weak, criticism of DM it's not of either DE or gravitons. Both gravity and DE/Lambda are extremely weak forces; we therefore cannot expect them to have excitations of the strength of the other forces so it's unsurprising we haven't the sensitivity to detect them; assuming of course that they exist, but it's a fair assumption given the similarities of EM and gravity which are more than just a few.

We also now know that DM and ordinary matter don't interact much if at all in any force but gravity. This is supported both by the difficulties detecting DM in the lab, and by the evidence of the Bullet Cluster and others like it. The evidence is consistent if disappointing. DM may well not interact at all in any way but gravity. It's still there, though.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2017
[contd]
It is my suspicion that there is no such structure to those phenomena. Not even down to the Planck Level. That our universe is a lot more a random wreckage of incoherent and conflicting forces.
The rest of them seem pretty coherent and I'm not sure what you mean by "conflicting." When you look at their underlying symmetries, the three forces other than gravity show the symmetries U1, SU2, and SU3. We haven't found the underlying symmetry for gravity yet. Perhaps you can state your reasons for this suspicion more clearly.

And, eventually, over trillions of years disintegrate back into the frozen chaos of the meta-universe.

Actually I wouldn't mind being proven wrong. Cause if I am right no anti-gravity (no null, contra, etc.) and that time is a one-way trip into the future of now.
Lotsa time between now and then. Considering there have only been humans for a hundred thousand years or so, I'm content just with that.
rrwillsj
not rated yet Dec 01, 2017
DS, I find your position logical, if this was a logical universe.

Though I still opinion that until the gravity particle is found and verified? Empirically proving symmetry for gravity?

I will stubbornly retain my viewpoint that existence is a whim of the Trickster Coyote. That Gravity is the eternal, infinite reality. And all the rest of what we are experiencing is ephemeral at best.

Doesn't mean any of us should just surrender to bleak fate. We must keep striving to better understand the ineffable. Cause science is fun! So why not go nuts trying to figure it all out!

"When the situation is hopeless? It is useless to give up!" Larry Niven
mackita
not rated yet Dec 01, 2017
IMO it's worth recalling Wittgenstein's remark on the geocentric model subject. "Tell me," he once asked a friend, "why do people always say, it was natural for man to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?" His friend replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth." Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?"

Now we can ask as well: "How the universe would appear if it had looked like being eternal and infinite and the red shift would be a consequence of the dispersion of light at vacuum fluctuations"? The problem of scientific progress is in not asking dual questions in time.
Caliban
not rated yet Dec 03, 2017
The whole problem with a conjecture such as this is that there is exactly ZERO way to prove it, in which case it shares a similar status with the God Creator.

Here is the essential question: IN what way can we incontrovertibly distinguish one of these "prem"ordial black holes from a coeval one?

The whole argument is a mere thought experiment and insubstantiable assertion.

I would recommend that this researcher first determine the exact mass of all the coeval black holes generated by the CURRENT universe, before asserting than there can be any left over from a PRIOR one.

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Dec 03, 2017
I will stubbornly retain my viewpoint that existence is a whim of the Trickster Coyote.
@rrwillsj
and how do you know the Wakinyan Tanka isn't the whim-producer?

methinks that it's far, far more likely considering the background and that Coyote is more a manipulator than anything, eh?

:-)
rrwillsj
not rated yet Dec 03, 2017
Oh great! Life wasn't interesting enough. We gotta go invent new religious wars.

Maii' Anádloh!
SwamiOnTheMountain
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
In raising this possibility, Neves challenges the idea that time had a beginning and reintroduces the possibility that the current expansion was preceded by contraction.

Doesn't this just move the goalpost? How does this eliminate the need for a 'beginning of time'?

It can move the goalpost out an infinite amount though. =)
The idea is that the universe has been doing the expanding and contracting forever. For this to work, that means the universe has always existed and therefor there is no 'beginning of time.'
As we know, a lot of people have strong feelings about that notion.
Spaced out Engineer
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
Both and neither, much like Copenhagen and surreal wave theories, there may exist auxiliaries.
Cyclic conformal cosmology maybe falsifiable, but that does not eliminate many worlds as a gross distortion of the present moment.
There is more than one vantage one could use for the fracturing of symmetry. It could still be happening, seeding an infinite distance away with positive and negative pressure near missing. It could be happening presently locally, just on another scale. Its happening is just an exceedingly useful approximation of relational limits of objectivity.
A retro-causal inflationary field preserving some system's nested entropy's protective Wigner function on the CMB as a configuration space may not be falsifable, if we always have to rely on the integration of the distribution. Yet in theory such a sage could still agree on multi-physics parameterization via the good fortune of surfaces like K3.
I would hold out on the big bang not being falsifiable. We shall see.
Spaced out Engineer
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
If the singularity being naked is highly improbable, maybe reality is mathematical. Who needs chances then? Yet there are other means of deriving connected and disconnected as the paradolia between exchanges of variant spaces.
Decoherence could mean something different from a gravitational perspective. Acceleration preserving entanglement, juxtaposed singular measurement of grouped many bodies locally.
Also a maximally compact space, aka singular, may not be the same from another dimensiality frame.
The triviality and information density should inform, yet we are left only with experimental axioms in realms of metric based empiricism.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2017
@rrwillsj, it's been logical three times out of four so far. The logic has stressed our imaginations but it's there. We've made nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons, and radioactive elements to cure cancer. We've found a major discontinuity that changed our universe when it was very young. We've detected the boson particles that enable these three forces, and figured out the symmetries that underlie them.

And to top it all off, for gravity, we have a one-hundred year old field theory: GRT. A hundred and fifty years ago all we had was a field theory for EM, and today we have not only electronics but we are on the verge of making quantum computers. So, do I think eventually we will have a quantum theory of gravity? Absolutely. I think there is no question. It's out there. And it will revolutionize our understanding of the universe, just as the quantum theories of the EM, weak, and color forces have. The trickster will have his say, but ultimately it will all fit together.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
Time didn't become a thing until it expanded during inflation. This implies that events that occurred before inflation are timeless. Talking about time before time is, in this view, silly, though I don't insist on it since I have no evidence-- other than the obvious self-contradiction-- to support it.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2017
Hey DS, self-contradiction is my business!

But, I want to express my thanks for your comments. You send a clear, coherent message, based on empirical evidence. That even a satirical dolt such as myself, can understand. Good Work, Man.
mackita
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2017
Time didn't become a thing UNTIL it expanded during inflation
UNTIL is itself word based on BEFORE-AFTER causality, so that time definitely had exist already. I indeed understand, what this misunderstanding is all about, because I've geometric model of time and "Big Bang" in my head. The Big Bang is general relativity based model and relativity handles time in geometrically very simple but specific way. Once you don't adopt this way, then you'll always drown in trivial semantics.
mackita
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
In general relativity the time dimension represents dimension of space-time metric like spatial dimension - it's just heavily compactified (the concept of space-time compactification comes from string theory, but its conceptually process very similar to condensation of gas). That means space-time forms a gradient analogous to water surface, which allows the spreading of light waves freely in spatial dimensions, whereas their spreading along time dimension is prohibited, as it would lead into their immediate scattering.

But if we would live at the water surface like waterstriders, then we would observe such a scattering even during remote observations, because the surface waves would disperse into underwater gradually. This scattering represents additional time dimension, which is conceptually similar to time dimension forming the space-time itself. From the similarity of both concepts the notion of time formation during Big Bang follows.
mackita
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
At sufficient distance of surface waves would scatter into underwater, which would mean, the temporal dimension would become indistinguishable from spatial ones and it effectively disappears. We can easily see, that this process is conceptually similar to compactification of space-time and formation of time dimension in it - it's just reversed in time. So that the cosmologists have their bit of truth, when they talk about formation of time in distant past of Universe - despite that whole model is actually quite stationary in fact.

One clue bring the fact that FRLW metric used in Standard LCDM model of cosmology is essentially the metric of black hole, just turned inside out (with density increasing toward its outer edge, so that the term "white hole" is sometimes used for description of this model). But this metric is as stationary, as the black hole itself.
mackita
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
This analogy is more intriguing than it looks at the first sight, because in 3D it requires the compactification in form of foam, where each membrane (space-time brane) is actually formed with pair of surface gradients tightly adjacent each other. Because this gradient is what the time dimension means in general relativity, it brings the notion of double time dimension, which is subject of both supersymmetry, both so-called heterotic string theories which utilize it, like the (2,0) theory in six dimensions.
This analogy also brings the notion of time reversed Universe at the boundary of this observable one (dark flow, cyclical cosmology) and also concept of multiverses in limited extent: all these concepts can be modeled just by scattering of ripples at the water surface.
Mimath224
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
Time didn't become a thing until it expanded during inflation. This implies that events that occurred before inflation are timeless. Talking about time before time is, in this view, silly, though I don't insist on it since I have no evidence-- other than the obvious self-contradiction-- to support it.

I usually, as you agree with you (in as much as a layman such as I can do). However, as we have conversed before, I do not agree with mainstream notion about time. If I take a more conventional stance (that is, not my own ideas) and suggest that change gives the illusion that there is an 'arrow of time' always proceeding into future moment relative to the 'now' moment. If one adopts the BBT then what was the 'change' that brought our present (known) universe into being? If the hadn't have been change then whatever 'it' was( that existed before BB) then we wouldn't be here discussing. Now the problem then arises, if there was that 'change in something' then this implies (cont)
mackita
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
When we make a splash at the water surface, then the portion of energy will scatter into underwater at sufficient distance and it will return back after while in form of weak and fuzzy echos. These echos can be also observed in our universe in deeply infrared spectrum. More importantly, the extensive scattering of light at the boundary of observable part of Universe introduces the phenomena like the dark matter flow, polarization of CMBR and also reversed time arrow, which implies that these boundaries are traveling against us like the bubbles of expanding parallel universes. So that all modern cosmologic theories have their bit of truth - they just can be derived from light scattering model in similar way, like the Hubble red shift itself. And indeed they're all stationary and reference frame independent. The distant observer would observe our portion of Universe as deformed, as we are observing his portion of Universe by now at distance.
Mimath224
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
(cont) that there was an analogous 'illusion of the arrow of time', although presumably the was no one there to see it...hmm or was there?. So if the BB was a future moment of some previous 'now' was there something else capable of change even before that...and so on. I wonder if the pre-BB state was based on more anti-matter in existence than now...was this state a precursor of the BB? So what I'm suggesting is that 'time' was just as relevant then as it is now. (I am aware of current theories that matter-antimatter states may not be just opposites but have different rates of decay too.)
mackita
1.5 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2017
if the pre-BB state was based on more anti-matter in existence than now...was this state a precursor of the BB
What if BB wasn't single event but process forming galaxies around us from excess of dark matter clouds and photons? And what if this process repeats itself after evaporation of galaxies into photons and dark matter at some other place being cyclical? The modern cosmology is sorta looking under the candlestick: a strange mixture of insightful guessing and ideologically motivated ignorance..
Mimath224
not rated yet Dec 04, 2017
mackita 'What if...And what if...' Too many 'what if's' which was not in my comment or intended. I was referring to what we call 'time'.
' ...insightful guessing and ideologically motivated ignorance..' Really?!
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2017
@Mimath, as you know I generally present the point of view of the general physics community, and in this case as well. We have a theory of mechanics called Special Relativity Theory which deals with time and space on the basis that they are all the same sort of thing, dimensions. However, their geometric relationships to one another are not. The space dimensions all relate to one another circularly, which is why circular trigonometry works in our universe for calculating distances. However, it doesn't work for time, unless you use special trig called hyperbolic trig. This is because the relation of time to the space dimensions is not circular, but hyperbolic.

It's not, you see, that time is different in and of itself; it's that it's differently related to the three space dimensions than they are to each other. As a result of this, we *perceive* it differently.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2017
[contd]
It seems as if it has a preferred direction, when in fact, like the other dimensions, it actually has two preferred directions. But there's more to it than that.

In the space dimensions, one can reverse the direction of motion of an object; this is merely a matter of applying a force to the object. But in time, one cannot do this. Because of time's hyperbolic relation, reversing direction in time requires infinite energy, even for the smallest particle. This, then, is the origin of the so-called "arrow of time."

Due to the symmetries underlying SRT, the Lorentz Symmetry and the related CPT symmetry, antimatter can be defined as matter that is reversed in charge, parity, and time (CPT). Feynman rather famously pointed this out quite a lot. Note that this is not simply time reversal; both parity and charge must also be reversed for the laws of physics to hold true.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2017
[contd]
We can measure it. And we measure it the same way we measure rotations in 3-space; we rotate something and it appears to change its size. If we rotate something in the x-y plane, then its apparent size changes in x and y. You can prove this; take a pencil and hold it in front of you, pointing crosswise; then rotate it and you will see for yourself that its apparent width changes. The same is true if you rotate it in the x-t plane, as SRT makes clear. But we have a special name for rotations in planes that involve time; we call it "velocity."

From the geometrical point of view, then, velocity is just another rotation; it's our peculiar bias due to how our thinking machinery works that makes us view velocity as "different" from other rotations.

Now, that's not a very satisfying answer, but it's what we know. We can go further and talk about the thermodynamic arrow of time, but really that's a result of this, not a basic answer. So see what you think of that.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
Da Schneib many thanks for your reply...I thought you realized from previous conversations (on other threads) that I am aware of most of what you have replied, SRT, GR, translations, transformations & rotations, 2nd law of thermoD etc. You seem to have forgotten. But these general points were not what I was alluding to. I was merely entertaining the idea the 'time' as we USE it, might be an illusion due to changes that take place around us. Ha! I do not claim this is my idea, it isn't (if memory serves I think Adam Frank points this out in one of his books). What I'm saying is that some change had to take place which manifest in the BB and that which was capable of change would also have given the illusion of time passing (had there been someone to observe it.) It follows that this type of 'arrow of time' was there before the BB. (my own, non mainstream, ideas about time don't follow this pattern and in fact in some ways, turn it upside down.)
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
As I explained above with analogy with water surface, the physics recognizes two time arrows: radiative and thermodynamic one. The radiative arrow is less general and defined by density gradient of space-time. The thermodynamic arrow is more general, high-dimensional and it follows the scattering of light during its spreading. This scattering occurs not only during passing the waves from surface to underwater, but also during their spreading across space along much larger distance. At the sufficiently large distance, when all waves would scatter into underwater both time arrows would become equal but not before. The problem is, Big Bang cosmology handles both time arrows in equal way, which leads into confusions. You can indeed ignore my analogy - but I've no better way, how to explain the difference between definitions of both time arrows. You'll need to have four-dimensional geometry of Universe before eyes which is difficult, so you should use lower-dimensional model (slice) of it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
@Mimath, yes, I know, but I always want to be sure we're talking on the same basis.

If Vilentkin et. alii are correct, then the inflaton was a high negative cosmological constant, AKA lambda in the cosmological term of the EFE. The universe started, if that's the right word, as a vacuum fluctuation in some background. The particular fluctuation that is our universe had high negative lambda, and this caused exponential expansion. However, this high value was (again, if "was" is the right word) unstable, and subject to vacuum decay. After some 10⁻⁴³ seconds of exponential expansion, which was enough to make our universe larger than the observable universe by something greater than an order of magnitude, the high value decayed to a low one; when this happened the energy from the inflaton was dumped into the space that would become our universe, and time was big so now we can talk about things like "was" and "started" in a meanginful way.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
[contd]
When vacuum decay occurs and the energy from the inflaton is dumped, this is the "Hot Big Bang." This means that all that has to pre-exist is some background that can generate vacuum fluctuations that have cosmological constant. The vacuum fluctuation with CC (or lambda or inflaton or whatever you want to call it) is thus the minimal necessary condition for the formation of our universe, along with whatever this background is. All the rest, the big dimensions, the energy for the BB, and everything that has happened since thus has the absolute minimal requirements for existence answered by the background and lambda.

This looks about as minimal as I can imagine. It therefore fulfills parsimony. And this is a pretty good reason for thinking it's the simplest available explanation that fits all the facts.

Does this require time in the original background? I don't know. But you'd need to do some convincing before I'd accept it does.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 05, 2017
When vacuum decay occurs and the energy from the inflaton is dumped,..
We have annihilation. Why do we need the inflaton? I understand we have supervoids with space comparable to a normal density spacetime containing 1000 trillion stars.
Merrit
not rated yet Dec 05, 2017
@da Schneib based on statistics I would think the universe would have been infinite and or timelessness to account for such an improbable event. Though, it could have been sufficiently big rather than actually infinite, but due to the likely probably of a BB event to occur it would be basically the same from our perspective. This is the simplest explanation for why the BB occurred. Similarly, the chance of life is also a very improbable event which explains why we don't see any signs of life in the universe. We are the only life. The only reason we see life, ourselves, is due to observation bias. Same deal with the BB. This is also due to observation bias. All comes down to statistics.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 05, 2017
@Merrit if vacuum fluctuations are happening ubiquitously in this background with random CC values, then it's not improbable at all, is it? In fact, if the background is infinite it's inevitable. This is the spur for eternal inflation, but it's not one that a lot of physicists or cosmologists like very much. Thus the large amount of controversy.

Be careful talking about observation bias; it has a somewhat different meaning than you're assigning it. Real observation bias is when you systematically (as opposed to psychologically) ignore negative results; this only applies in closed result sets. What you really mean is confirmation bias, which is a psychological phenomenon where negative results are ignored due to the psychology of the observer, rather than due to mis-definition of the search parameters.
Merrit
not rated yet Dec 05, 2017
@da Schneib what I mean by observation bias is that we may, incorrectly, assume life is common because we see it here on earth. When in fact, it is exceptionally rare. When we first realized there were other planets our there we assumed they would all have life.

Similarly there were likely an infinite number of BB events in the universe all of different magnitudes and locations. This BB just happens to be the one we came into existence inside of.
Merrit
not rated yet Dec 05, 2017
Observer bias (also called experimenter bias or research bias) is the tendency to see what we expect to see, or what we want to see. When a researcher studies a certain group, they usually come to an experiment with prior knowledge and subjective feelings about the group being studied
Da Schneib
not rated yet Dec 05, 2017
@Merrit this is the Anthropic Principle. As I said, it's controversial. Where it gets really interesting is when you start talking to people who know thermodynamics; they'll tell you that it's equally likely that the early universe had high entropy as low. In this case we live in a low entropy time in an eternal universe, because a low entropy time is the only time we can evolve. I've pursued this with various folks and it swallows its own tail; the pre-BB inflation scenario at least has parsimony to recommend it. A high entropy pre-BB state proposes an entire universe instead of a vacuum fluctuation. One might reasonably characterize it as the opposite of parsimony.

You might convince me that confirmation bias is a type of observer bias. But you won't convince me they're "the same thing."
Mimath224
4 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
Da Schneib
[contd]
When vacuum decay occurs and the energy from the inflaton is dumped, this is the "Hot Big Bang." This means that all that has to pre-exist is some background that can generate..... But you'd need to do some convincing before I'd accept it does.

Thanks for the reply. Aah! That's more like the Da Schneib I have come to know. Well, no I can't offer much to convince anyone (Ha!) and I wouldn't try to convince you anyway as that would impolite.
Yes I do see what you mean but wouldn't background fluctuations be in a continuous state of change. That is, using the term 'fluctuation' as an energetic 'substrate' or basis for the BB. If that were the case then 'arrow of time' interpreted as 'change' could also apply there.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2017
Starting with what "quantum fluctuations" means, it seems that we have them in our universe. This is often referred to as "quantum foam." What it means is that Feynman diagrams that start with nothing are possible as long as they end with nothing. However, the ones we see in this universe don't seem to have CC.

Discussing whether such a background has a time dimension or not is footless; we'd have no way to know. It's certainly not necessary. All the vacuum fluctuations could happen at "the same time" but at different locations and we'd never know.
carbon_unit
not rated yet Dec 06, 2017
Apologies if I missed it, but how do you tell the difference in origins of black holes based only on observing a BH "now"? All you have to go on is mass and spin, right? What makes a primordial BH of this universe different than one of the previous? Or one of stellar collapse? I'm guessing that a BH going through the crunch might gain some mass while everything is crammed together... Maybe the difference would be statistical? Too many primordial holes if there was no "before"??
mackita
not rated yet Dec 06, 2017
The "primordial black holes" are one of conjectures of string theory, which were used for its testing and which actually don't exist. But apparently such an ideas resonate in public awareness long after they were abandoned by mainstream physics. Until we of course don't consider common particles and atom nuclei as such a primordial black holes, because the string theorists don't really understand the phenomenology of extradimensions.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 06, 2017
Hello C6
Apologies if I missed it, but how do you tell the difference in origins of black holes based only on observing a BH "now"? All you have to go on is mass and spin, right? What makes a primordial BH of this universe different than one of the previous? Or one of stellar collapse?...
I understand there is a class of supermassive black holes too big to have formed since the BB. Fits my scenario just fine. In this scenario the BB was formed from the merger of 2 really great supermassive BHs, one matter and one antimatter. The supermassive BHs we see now would be fragrants left over from the annihilation. Note a similar fragmentation process seems to be going on with Boyagian's (Tabby's) star.
Merrit
not rated yet Dec 08, 2017
@seeker the supermasssive BHs, such as the ones that seem to appear at the center of every galaxy, may not have formed by the traditional path of star into supernova into BH. Scientists don't know for sure, but some think they may have formed directly for super massive stars.
Seeker2
not rated yet Dec 09, 2017
Thanks @Merrit. So after baryogenesis there were thick clouds of mixed protons and anti-protons duking it out. The only winners in this battle were the ones which flocked together to avoid the conflagration going on at the surface of one of these separated groups. The interior particles survived, the surface particles annihilated causing inflation. I looked up flocking theorems and it's over my paygrade but I can give you a hand-waving argument if you'd like. Anyway the result is huge clouds of hydrogen and anti-hydrogen separated into huge spherical regions ready to collapse directly into these super-massive stars.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.