It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Big Bang was the event which led to the formation of the universe, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's early development (known as the Big Bang theory or Big Bang model). According to the Big Bang model, the universe, originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly, has since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state, and continues to expand today. Based on the best available measurements as of 2010, the original state of the universe existed around 13.7 billion years ago, which is often referred to as the time when the Big Bang occurred. The theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations.
He does not believe that space and time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang but that the Big Bang was in fact just one in a series of many, with each big bang marking the start of a new "aeon" in the history of the universe."
According to Penrose and Gurzadyan, as described in arXiv: 1011.3706, these circles allow us to "see through" the Big Bang into the aeon that would have existed beforehand. They are the visible signature left in our aeon by the spherical ripples of gravitational waves that were generated when black holes collided in the previous aeon.
For years, Einstein hoped to unite the contemporary ideas of relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, he could not unite these theories because he limited his parameters for a unifying equation to the four dimensions that humans consciously experience. The first physicists to truly pursue the theory of additional dimensions were Kaluza and Klein. They noticed that if a fifth dimension were to exist in the universe, there would be fields of angles between all of the existing dimensions. By applying this to Einstein’s geometric model of gravity, Kaluza and Klein noticed that gravity, the force that relativity is concerned with, and electromagnetism, one of the forces that quantum mechanics deals with, showed similar properties. Therefore, by adding a fifth dimension to the universe, the same equations that apply to electromagnetism could also apply to gravity. It was later shown that not only is one additional dimension required for this link to be solidified, but six more dimensions. Even further down the road, it was discovered that the formulas used to determine this number (which are actually mathematical methods of approximation, since the actual formulas are unknown) we slightly off, resulting in yet another necessary dimension. Therefore, our three physical dimensions plus one time dimension plus seven additional dimensions results in there being eleven dimensions!
I'm not so sure that's a new theory, I've heard it for a very long time.
Originally posted by css1981
now there is a new theory wich claims that the big bang is part of a cyclus
Are you asking me?
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
So, just to be clear, in your opinion, you're saying the big bang is not a 'fact' then?
And a big part of the earliest phase of the big bang theory that is so speculative is inflation, which they call an "unsolved problems in physics"
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. ...
After about 10−11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10−6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons.
inflation and baryogenesis remain somewhat more speculative features of current Big Bang models: they explain important features of the early universe, but could be replaced by alternative ideas without affecting the rest of the theory.[notes 7] Discovering the correct explanations for such phenomena are some of the remaining unsolved problems in physics.
So evidence for the big bang is pretty good, though there are aspects about it that we don't understand and are highly speculative. So speculating about what happened before the earliest part of the big bang, like the topic of this thread, is even MORE highly speculative.
The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, the formation of galaxies—are derived from many observations that are independent from any cosmological model; these include the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae.
- BBC News Article
Renowned cosmologist Roger Penrose said that analysis of this cosmic microwave background showed echoes of previous Big Bang-like events.
Yes, the topic of this thread is one of them, sort of, but they don't really seem to have much support, and they don't make much sense to me, here is an article about 3 theories:
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Are there any other competing theories that are out there but not as well known?
EU is electric universe, which is sort of a hodge-podge of different ideas, the wackiest of which is that the sun (and other stars) are not powered by nuclear fusion but by some other process for which there is no evidence. So you can toss the idea that the sun isn't powered by fusion in the trash.
What was the EU one?
But just because almost no scientist accepts the tired light models, doesn't mean they won't continue to make more and more accurate measurements. And chances are pretty good those will nail the coffin shut on tired light, but you never know if there might be a surprise, like the dark energy surprise, nobody expected that one.
Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship as alternatives to the Big Bang and the Steady State cosmologies, both of which proposed that Hubble's law was associated with a metric expansion of space.
Today, tired light is remembered mainly for historical interest, and almost no scientist accepts tired light as a viable explanation for Hubble's Law.