Universe that existed before big bang being speculated

I was stumbling and i came across this article which was quite interesting i must say, Sir Roger Penrose and a colleage are working with an idea saying that there might be a continuous cycle of universes, say that circles they have found in the microwave backround radiation of the universe shows things that don't work for the current inflation motel that most physicist use

Sir Roger Penrose, one of the most renowned physicists of the last fifty years, takes issue with this view. He points out that the universe was apparently born in a very low state of entropy, meaning a very high degree of order initially existed, and this is what made the complex matter we see all around us (and are composed of) possible in the first place. His objection is that the Big Bang model can't explain why such a low entropy state existed, and he believes he has a solution - that the universe is just one of many in a cyclical chain, with each Big Bang starting up a new universe in place of the one before.

they are hypothysising that the universe will continue to expand until it is eventually nothing but black holes and once the black holes collide into each other there will be nothing but another great singularity that will then start a "new" universe

So what does that mean? Penrose believes these circles are windows into the previous universe, spherical ripples left behind by the gravitational effects of colliding black holes in the previous universe. He also says these circles don't work well at all in the current inflationary model, which holds all temperature variations in the CMB should be truly random.

again this is just a working theory and is in the process of getting itself going but still i figured it was interesting and that it belonged on ATS

www.staplenews.com...
that is the link to the article

reply to post by caf1550

they are hypothysising that the universe will continue to expand until it is eventually nothing but black holes and once the black holes collide into each other there will be nothing but another great singularity that will then start a "new" universe

That doesn't seem to make sense.

I was under the impression that the universe (and everything in it) was actually accelerating in its expansion, avoiding any possibility of a gravity rebound - and without a rebound, how would the black holes be drawn together to form a singularity?

reply to post by Praetorius


If I understand correctly...

They don't get drawn together. There becomes so many of them that they begin to pass the event horizon of other black holes and they essentially all merge into one massive (an understatement) black hole that forms a singularity that creates another universe.

That's how my layman's mind interpreted it, anyway.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by caf1550

 

they are hypothysising that the universe will continue to expand until it is eventually nothing but black holes and once the black holes collide into each other there will be nothing but another great singularity that will then start a "new" universe

That doesn't seem to make sense.

I was under the impression that the universe (and everything in it) was actually accelerating in its expansion, avoiding any possibility of a gravity rebound - and without a rebound, how would the black holes be drawn together to form a singularity?

Is there really a such thing as a gravity rebound or lack there of? Perhaps any and every object will eventually be swallowed into a singularity do to the force of gravity. We learn new things in the quantum plane all the time, more than we learn about our own oceans. How time works differently, so why would you rule out that gravity has the rule which makes it so that objects have to be a certian distance or else they aren't attracted?

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by Praetorius

 

If I understand correctly...

They don't get drawn together. There becomes so many of them that they begin to pass the event horizon of other black holes and they essentially all merge into one massive (an understatement) black hole that forms a singularity that creates another universe.

That's how my layman's mind interpreted it, anyway.

Hehe i like how this is perceived.. I massive event horizon which we could already be in?
Man that'd be a lot to imagine in 3-D space...

Originally posted by caf1550
I was stumbling and i came across this article which was quite interesting i must say, Sir Roger Penrose and a colleage are working with an idea saying that there might be a continuous cycle of universes, say that circles they have found in the microwave backround radiation of the universe shows things that don't work for the current inflation motel that most physicist use

Sir Roger Penrose, one of the most renowned physicists of the last fifty years, takes issue with this view. He points out that the universe was apparently born in a very low state of entropy, meaning a very high degree of order initially existed, and this is what made the complex matter we see all around us (and are composed of) possible in the first place. His objection is that the Big Bang model can't explain why such a low entropy state existed, and he believes he has a solution - that the universe is just one of many in a cyclical chain, with each Big Bang starting up a new universe in place of the one before.

they are hypothysising that the universe will continue to expand until it is eventually nothing but black holes and once the black holes collide into each other there will be nothing but another great singularity that will then start a "new" universe

So what does that mean? Penrose believes these circles are windows into the previous universe, spherical ripples left behind by the gravitational effects of colliding black holes in the previous universe. He also says these circles don't work well at all in the current inflationary model, which holds all temperature variations in the CMB should be truly random.

again this is just a working theory and is in the process of getting itself going but still i figured it was interesting and that it belonged on ATS

www.staplenews.com...
that is the link to the article

I respect Penrose but I think scientists of the day should stick too scientific problems they can handle and not go overboard by stating things like this. It is narcissistic to indulge in theory's that involve existence preceding the big bang.

If we can not predict the conditions at a singularity within a black hole, we can not predict what happened the moment before the big bang (assuming that is what happened) and we can't presume to know what happened before.

Remember, the big bang is a "best guess" it is the same best scientific guess the best minds in the world had when we were all flat earthers.

Beautiful. Kind of ties in with the concept of circular life theory, in that "life" repeats itself, ad what has happened before, will happen again, and again, and again. And just like you get a different combination each time you throw a dice, you get a different color of life each time. I think that is the real Matrix we are trapped in.
Good find, OP.

reply to post by Praetorius


well yes the universe will keep expanding but what they are saying is, this is how i took it

that since the universe will keep expanding eventually there will not be enough matter left in space to form new stars and eventually stars will start to go suprenova cause black holes with some possibly billions of black holes in each galaxy, all galaxies are bound together through gravity and that will eventually make them collide just like they do now in the universe, superclusters will turn into 1 massive galaxy this will continue until all the stars die out and there is nothing left expect for black holes that will then all merge together causing one infinite singularity and then the process will start all over again

thats how i took it anyways

Big Crunch, or Big Rip, why not isolated pockets of both so to speak. Where it disperses, it may eventually cool an fall off, like you losing dead skin. Where 'black holes' coagulate, our laws of physics don't make sense, thus a transition to a greater force of attraction or dark energy, a different dimension, a new particle in an alternate universe with different laws of physics. A continuous and osculating but never really interacting alternate universes that are just a molecule of a greater existence that is eternal.

God or Physics, Matter and Antimatter, yin and yang, why always a definitive division of things. We may eventually learn there are no divisions but avenues to greater parts of the whole. Once we learn to interact appropriately.

If everything was a perfect balance of things, existence would not be possible due to the forces canceling out the opposition, Imbalance creates existence, it allows for random dispersion and attraction, (much like a good movie and bad movie in a theater). Life is stranger than fiction.

You know, to day first it was the weird horse shoe flying meteor then the new law of nature or what ever and now this thread just tells me how young we are in this universe and how much more we got to learn. God I really hope we make it, at least into space like star wars or star trek lol. I guess it really don't matter at some point it will all be over and bang it all will start again If these guys are right?

Originally posted by Praetorius
I was under the impression that the universe (and everything in it) was actually accelerating in its expansion, avoiding any possibility of a gravity rebound - and without a rebound, how would the black holes be drawn together to form a singularity?

I thought the expansion was actually slowing down.
Much slower now than it was in the beginning.
I very easily could be wrong.

We are such silly little creatures, thinking we understand (let alone know) anything at all. We really don't. Last summer, there was just an article about how there was no Big Bang and now we have a new model of the Big Bang.

And people wonder why I scoff at science and its practitioners. They *know* nothing. If they could acknowledge this and stop spouting their ideas as though it were *absolutely true*, they would deserve more respect. As it is though, they rule us with their less-than-worthy ideas, calling them theories or (heaven forbid) laws, when we don't even know what we don't know yet. When we know what there really is and really isn't, then we can start formulating something that might resemble hypothesis. What we have now is pure conjecture. Science needs to own up to its own ineptitude and encourage more freedom of thinking and observation instead of limiting it further with their ridiculous "scientific method".

reply to post by caf1550


UGH! Why an infinite regression answer? WHY?! This still doesn't tell us anything. Our universe came from another universe which came from a different universe and then that universe began from yet another universe. Ok, but where did matter for these infinite universes come from? What existed prior to the creation of matter itself? What happened before the very first universe?

Might as well just say God did it.

sounds familiar to me... here's a theory of mine that resembles...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Illustronic


or the big freeze

they don't know.

reply to post by Arrius




Nice one, it kind of reminds me of groundhog day, things/history repeating itself over n over n over n over n over.
Same s**t different day/ time, if you will excuse my language !!!


Icanseeatoms.

Nice, but I don't think there was a big bang.

I mean:

First, there was nothing - then it exploded. Nope

reply to post by cushycrux


,

I too dont believe there was a big bang but as a curious spectator would you tell me what it is that you think happened instead of the big bang, i only ask as i dont have a definite answer myself, sorry to put you on the spot a bit.


Icanseeatoms.

in all honesty i don't think we will ever know how the unviverse came to be

they are saying what if there was a never ending line of universes that came before us and that will come after us

the fact that we will never know how the 'first" universe came to be will be a question without answer for a long long time i believe

Originally posted by Helious
I respect Penrose but I think scientists of the day should stick too scientific problems they can handle and not go overboard by stating things like this. It is narcissistic to indulge in theory's that involve existence preceding the big bang.

Well said.

We can't even figure out the big bang yet and they still want to speculate what came before it? How about starting with inflation? That's already a highly speculative theory at the big bang, let's figure that out first.

I think I saw a signature on ATS that said something like "If you tell me what's south of the south pole, I'll tell you what happened before the big bang"

The cyclical universe concept was popular before the 1998 discovery of the "dark energy" phenomenon, but that pretty much killed it. This was the outcome of that discovery:

Future of an expanding universe

Some people still want to hang on to a recycling universe, it seems.