New ''theory'' about the Big Bang being a ''change of phase''

I thought this was an interesting new 'theory,' and wonder if any of you here have read about it? If so, what do you think? Could the Big Bang have been a change of 'phase,' and not an 'explosion' at all? Interesting theory, I thought.


http://www.space.com/17217-big-bang-phase-change-theory.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I sometimes go to the physics and math threads and even though I cannot comprehend much of it I still try my best. I am so envious of physicists and their ability to tackle complex math and then create theories from it. Gee, to be a theoretical mathematician or theoretical physicist and be able to comprehend the universe at that level would be a dream come true! Am i gushing too much? I really do idolize these men and women.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

haha, Yes, I'm with you!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I try my best too, and I grasp the fundamentals, but when I read something such as this, a new 'theory,' it amazes me that there are ways to ''test'' new theories, relating to the beginning of the universe. The human mind is quite remarkable!

This makes me wonder about the 'security' of the BB theory, and if any new theory will ever take its place. I used to think not, but science is always discovering new possibilities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well let the dismantling of the theory and the math begin!

 

I'm also a member of this club...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

From my point of view [again as a layman] any future new theory will almost certainly "encompass" the BB theory, while at the same time extending the paramaters at which the BB theory is valid.

 

hear, hear!

Yes, it doesn't need to disqualify it, the BB theory could (merely) be modified. We run across a variety of different scientific ideas from a conceptual standpoint every so often, and they seem...meh, a little out there. (or way out there) This alternative theory however, seems to have merit.

 

It really does seem to but w/o the big guns on this forum to explain and break it down.....:shrug:

Truth is when they start explaining it I be like this

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and then I be like:worship:

 

Change of Phase

A Slavic (in name) cosmologist first developed this proposal about fifteen years ago. The basic idea is that the universe was one-half of a singularity pair. They alternated back and forth, "oscillating" in a rhythm of the mutual cancelation of one and then the re-appearance of the other. Each was a universe in mass, however small. After a very long time, they "misoscillated", allowing our universe to escape its usual turn. Then it inflated into a void of what must be other "swinging couples". Many cosmologists thought this theory promising but it languished until recently when some more work has advanced it. Previously, the universe was thought to have re-contracted upon itself and then to have rebounded. However, it is now thought to be expanding at about 3.34 times light's speed. Thus, no "Big Crunch", so cosmologists needed a new cause to explain why we're here and not not...

 

Yes, that's the right way to go. I even had the idea that "the moment when an amorphous, formless universe analogous to liquid water" suddenly formed a bubble, or void which expanded and then some spinning energy from the 'outside' erupted into it.

 

Is there any kind of experiment in which physicists can prove/disprove this theory or will it just be theoretical math? Please remember this question is coming from a layman.

 

Firstly, thanks for asking. It would take sophisticated simulation modeling based on some clever maths I'd imagine. It was beyond my own capabilities, but I hope someone in the future will try it. I imagined two opposing mirror image spiraling threads of energy which themselves become 'spinning threads of spinning threads'. Gravitons are eventually created by the radiation of helical spinning particles. This mutual force of attraction builds until the two opposing fractal mega-structures implode into one another, creating our familiar protons and neutrons.

 

My mind is blown, as they say, quarklet. Wow! ''...allowing our universe to escape its usual turn?''

Did you play around with the math at all? Thanks for sharing, by the way.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

^^ this

QUESTION...Anyone have trouble clicking on the link in the article, showing the math for this theory? I click on it, and it takes me to an advertisement. :/

 

It goes on and on and on ......and on ......and on

Lets make the BB fit into the square peg , somehow

 

says the man who believes in mermaids

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Belief is one thing

Evidence , is an entirely different perspective , as a detective would know

 

Mermaids don’t exist. Come on, now. You will believe those videos as conclusive evidence, over this theory that has some substance to it?
:shrug:
Hmmm...

 

Read Alan Guth's Eternal Inflation theory. The linked paper is about the first attempt to discover evidence, evaluating WMAP data from the CMBR experiment, that members of the eternal inflating multiverse may have gone 'bump in the night'.
First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995

 

No, it was a simulation model within my mind which I wanted to get onto the computer screen. I tried going straight to a computer program written in Java. I couldn't get the fractal element of 'spinning threads of spinning threads'. My mind was about to burst. I wanted to hire someone else to do it, but couldn't raise the cash needed. (I was in cuckoo land thinking that it was a possibility to get funding).

Thanks for the comment

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The classical Big Bang Theory isn't going to be replaced by any theory. Guth's Inflation predictions were confirmed by the WMAP experiment. The Universe begins with the inflation event and the further evolution of the universe is described by the classical Big Bang theory. It'll be interesting to read the paper and see what difference the 'phase change' makes compared to inflation. Initially it was part of the inflation hypothesis but it resulted in theoretical problems and was discarded.

 

In your opinion of course. All science really knows is that planets, stars and galaxies exist. Everything else is speculation until a T.O.E. is established. It's never going to happen with the current mainstream math based models of reality which are inherently incompatible. It's a FACT.