Cosmos may show echoes of events before Big Bang

Cosmos may show echoes of events before Big Bang

www.bbc.co.uk

Evidence of events that happened before the Big Bang can be seen in the glow of microwave radiation that fills the Universe, scientists have asserted.

Renowned cosmologist Roger Penrose said that analysis of this cosmic microwave background showed echoes of previous Big Bang-like events.

The events appear as "rings" around galaxy clusters in which the variation in the background is unusually low.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Many of us here at ATS consider the Big Bang Theory to be a 'best explanation' theory.

In my view, it is now obsolete.

Many of us have already discussed and debated the idea that 'existence' is something of a wheel, with your 'entry' into said existence being your current life.

The problem we've had is that there has never been any evidence for this 'wheel of time'. Now it appears that there may be - "....all that is, has come before, and will again."

Everything oscillates - at different amplitudes and wavelengths yes, but EVERYTHING oscillates. If you consider existence as something that oscillates as well, you come across and understand cosmology and the existence of black holes, and red shift.

The report we see here shows evidence for the 'explosions' of energy created by the joining of supermassive black holes, and presents the idea that they are involved in the spawning of a 'galactic epoch'.

The Big Bang is dead. The Big BANGS have stamped on it.

The Revenant.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Microwaves in space, it's how things take place...

Microwaves in the kitchen, everyone starts bitchin'.

I think, considering that all in all these are still theories at best given our limited understanding, it's impossible to jump to conclusions.

There are numerous arguments for the big bang - based on science - yet this is what, a new consideration? One without peer, without continued study?

hardly banged out of existence to replace the big bang theory.

I'll wait for more. I certainly don't discredit the thought. Not at all, but just because you see snow for the first time, doesn't mean it has never rained.

"In the scheme that I'm proposing, you have an exponential expansion but it's not in our aeon - I use the term to describe [the period] from our Big Bang until the remote future.

"I claim that this aeon is one of a succession of such things, where the remote future of the previous aeons somehow becomes the Big Bang of our aeon."

I love the idea, but really, it doesnt prove anything - and the evidence for it, is haphazzard. I'll keep an eye on it tho!!

reply to post by badw0lf


Indeed, I think you're right in that nothing can be proved - but dare I say it, my words are more prophetic than based on current fact.

I genuinely believe we're going to evolve from the Big Band Theory sooner or later, and I think this may well be the next contestant!

Rev.

reply to post by The Revenant


I still can't figure out how the Big Bang theory sidesteps the first law of Thermodynamics.....

We know the universe had a beginning, so where did the matter and energy come from???

Microwaves in space, like Tesla and Willy Ley didn't find any before.
Tesla had the biggest coils in the world and could detect any electric vibration in
high voltage tubes with ether light showing up in wave detection.
Part of Tesla Dynamic Theory of Gravity that some Harry Potter Illuminati put at
snake fang in to seal from us has been theorized by the Tesla revolutionaries
to contain evidence of microwave transmission from the Earth, Mars and planets
that so called official announcements have forgotten to tell us.
Back before 1940 Tesla gave us published truthful science now we get his findings
announced like some great stupefying miracle that can't be explained.
That goes for the many puzzling aircraft witnessed through the years.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by The Revenant

 

I still can't figure out how the Big Bang theory sidesteps the first law of Thermodynamics.....

We know the universe had a beginning, so where did the matter and energy come from???

I'm sure you're 'itching' to suggest something to us here?

Rev.

Well there is the infinity theory.
Always was and always will be.
Thus big bang is some mistake perhaps of official lies.
It might not take too much thought to provide a correct theory.
I don't have any handy links to the statements of the contrary
but they do exist as I've seem them on the net.
The names such as Eric Lerner and William Lyne put in a
search might give the infinite theory results.

reply to post by The Revenant


Awesome if we can really detect events that took place before the big bang. It would support the string theory hypothesis of our universe being one of many and that they occasionally collide and create another big bang. Physicists call them membranes or branes in a multiverse and according to string theory, they can and do occasionally collide with an enormous amount of energy released (a big bang). Below is a graphic of two branes, which move independently of each other, or maybe not, because this particular graphic also shows black holes spanning branes, also a feature of string theory and this implies gravitational involvement. Whatever the case may be, it looks like the standard model may need some re-working.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9a629793dc98.jpg[/atsimg]

These type of conversations always remind me of the Emerald Tablets and the words "as above so below" (and beyond). I am of personal belief that the universe is nothing more than a piece of a truly infinite puzzle. Who knows maybe if we look far enough out into space or look closer and closer at our particles we might just see a universe that is near identical to our own but instead I spelled bannanna right.

-(i)Grut

I am not a big fan of the theory of a singular "big bang" I am leaning more to "little bangs" where the universe has always existed, doesn't actually have a border or edge, and galaxies are created and destroyed by black holes.

Imagine how large the black hole would be at the center of the galaxy if all the matter in this galaxy were inside it.

Now, I don't think that black holes are the end of it all, eventually all that mass hits a critical level and BANG! all that stellar matter explodes into a new galaxy. Anyone else think it's a bit odd that galaxies look a lot like what they depict star systems to look like when they form?

To me they look a lot like mini galaxies. I don't think it's a coincidence either, I think that galaxies are on their way to becoming larger things and in the end they get swallowed up by the black hole in the center, eventually to be born again.

Just my take on it anyway.

Originally posted by The Revenant

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by The Revenant

 

I still can't figure out how the Big Bang theory sidesteps the first law of Thermodynamics.....

We know the universe had a beginning, so where did the matter and energy come from???

I'm sure you're 'itching' to suggest something to us here?

Rev.

That based on Physics the theory is impossible??

My suggestion.

reply to post by whatukno


I have a very similar look to the universe as a whole. I have often thought about black holes being the negative to the positive "big bang" (or visa versa). I like to think of it as a heart beat. Explode then collapse then explode. The fun thing to think about is the big bangs that interact with each other and share material when they collapse into a black hole. This would make a completely new black hole than the start of the first 2 involved (or more). Even the universe itself seems to be a product of evolution.

-(i)Grut

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
reply to post by The Revenant

 

Awesome if we can really detect events that took place before the big bang. It would support the string theory hypothesis of our universe being one of many and that they occasionally collide and create another big bang. Physicists call them membranes or branes in a multiverse and according to string theory, they can and do occasionally collide with an enormous amount of energy released (a big bang). Below is a graphic of two branes, which move independently of each other, or maybe not, because this particular graphic also shows black holes spanning branes, also a feature of string theory and this implies gravitational involvement. Whatever the case may be, it looks like the standard model may need some re-working.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9a629793dc98.jpg[/atsimg]

This post is right on, the new movement is the Big Bang was really the Big Brane, and the theory has already been modified, at least for those of us who prescribe to M-Theory. That does not however discredit Dr. Mather's and Dr. Smoot's finding, if nothing else it just adds to the credence of the brane theory.

So I was going to delete this after actually reading the posts here and I realizing I posted the same idea (severe case of ADD). Although, I thought I would leave it up, because it answers a couple poster's questions. So, remember, forgive me if this sounds like a repeat...

Anyways, What if the rebound effect (when all galaxies, matter, energy converge back to the point of origin) creates some type of ludicrously large ball of energy that eventually collapses into... something quite ludicrously large, or what I'll call... a grandfather black hole. Then a few billionths of a second later, explodes from its instability and initiates a big bang, only to repeat the cycle indefinitely for all eternity if left unhindered.

Exploding black holes, and grandfather black holes, "what tripe" you say.. I say why not.

There is no evidence that says black holes have a size limit, nothing to constrain them. There is evidence however, that black holes explode (see link).
www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by iGrut


Kinda, I lean more towards black holes being massive amounts of matter squashed by gravity into a sphere. Eventually like everything else in the universe there is a breaking point. Enough matter smashed into a small enough space I think could cause some sort of hypernova effect. Where the hypermassive black hole explodes into a new galaxy.

I am not too fond of string theory because to me (and maybe I don't understand it well enough) it sounds like some people spent too much time in college smoking something. I would much rather try and figure out this universe before postulating on other universes.

To me, looking how solar systems are formed, then looking at the shape of galaxies, makes me think that things in the universe want to condense. Kinda like shaking up a lava lamp when it's warm, all the little wax particles collide and stick together eventually forming larger things till eventually you turn off the heat and all the wax solidifies into one clump.

Maybe that's what galaxies do, they start off as large pockets of gas in the universe, eventually coalescing into star systems, planets, moons. Then over time a system of black holes orbits the central super massive black hole till they all eventually collide into it and then at some point there is too much matter for the black hole's gravity to contain then it explodes into another proto galaxy, starting the whole process all over again.

Makes you wonder what a black hole going nova would look like.

reply to post by whatukno


String theory is the closest theoretical physicists have right now to answering fundamental questions about the world we live in. The mathematics involved can be quite complex and I doubt professors, physicists and science textbook authors are all "smoking something", while still keeping their jobs.

100 years ago everyone thought our galaxy was the entire universe. The hazy smudges astronomers saw through their telescopes were considered to be gas clouds inside our own galaxy but we now know that they are in fact whole other galaxies outside our own. So probably a similar mindset shift will occur when thinking about other universes.

The potential of string theory is enormous, it can solve the problem Einstein died trying to figure out, namely the Grand Unified Theory where general relativity or gravity can be combined with quantum physics and the four known forces of nature can be explained more simply or unified.

Sure it still has some quirks, and is a work in progress. If you are interested in knowing more about string theory, Columbia University professor and theoretical physicist, Brian Greene, did three shows for PBS NOVA called The Elegant Universe aimed at a general audience. You can watch them online here: www.pbs.org...