Is it possible that the Big Bang theory is wrong or incomplete?

>>8875365
Almost certainly incomplete

>>8875365
breaking Big Bang - Heisenberg

https://youtu.be/zO2vfYNaIbk?t=50s

>>8875365
When black hole reaches a critical mass and the matter within the singularity loses its material cohesion, it will transform into pure energy virtually instantaneously and cause a new 'bubble' of space. Our 'universe' is only one of many and acceleration of the expansion of the universe is due to outside gravitational/electromagnetic forces.

Atleast thats the most logical explanation i can come up with since i dont believe in hypothetical dark memes.

>>8875395
>lets assert that some kind of space-time quantum foam sort of something existed before our own universe began
lets not

>>8875404
So we're the excrement of a black hole, is what you're saying?

>>8875416
Thats my belief at the moment, yes.

>>8875413
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

>>8875404
That all depends on whether black holes have an infinitely dense singularity at their centre. Doesn't this contradict several models of the universe?

>>8875447
Black holes more than likely do have infinite density at the point of singularity, although some theoretical physicists think they're basically wormholes to other points in the universe.

File: brain.jpg (186KB, 534x400px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 534x400px

>>8875365
hawking and le ebin boundary-less universe. nothing has ever exploded. flow of time is an illusion created in the human brain by the way thermodynamics directs information storage. so is cause and effect. namaste :^)

>>8875457
Does having a singularity cause an information paradox? Because that would mean we could not reconstruct what 'fell' into the black hole.

I know the singularity intuitively feels like it is correct but there are some other theories that can explain he nature of the black hole, such as the fire wall.

>>8875469
Most think that the matter just "disappears" but that doesn't really make sense to me.

File: 1493624274583.png (1MB, 950x761px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 950x761px

>>8875365
i think the creation of xyz(t) space itself during the inflation is mind boggling. So you're telling me, time didn't exist, space didn't exist, protons/neutrons or any particle didn't exist... yet we KNOW that something caused the singularity and we KNOW that something that caused it HAD to exist outside of all of these quaint notions of our plane of existence. So what caused that singularity and is it God?

>>8875703
You are literally asking "what caused the thing that makes causal relations possible". You're applying concepts that were derived from the study of our own universe outside of it.

>>8875720
The 'concept' of 3D space and time and particle matter aren't derived from our study of the universe. They are fundamental existed before we knew they existed. If you are speaking in respect to the 'first cause' of the singularity, knowing there is a beginning to something necessitates that it had a cause.

>What would've caused a point of infinite density to explode
This is not part of standard cosmology. At no point does the standard hot big bang include a singularity. The farthest back that anyone can robustly speculate about was the GUT era when 3 forces of nature were unified. A singularity is a classical outdated idea.

>>8875424
LCDM doesn't assert anything of the sort.

>>8875751
>The 'concept' of 3D space and time and particle matter aren't derived from our study of the universe. They are fundamental existed before we knew they existed.
Kant pls. But seriously, I meant human understanding of these, which can only be based on extrapolations from our experience. Time and space are dimensions in the spacetime we're living in currently, and by definition they "didn't exist" "before" the spacetime "began to exist". If you postulate that our universe exists in some higher-lever multiverse with its own spacetime, where the laws of causality are defined, that's your prerogative, though.

>>8875365
I don't believe in the Big Bang. I think the creation of the universe lies on a spectrum.

>>8875781
knowing that the universe had a beginning demands it had a cause. there's no way around this, and causality laws would still apply to the universe. i must say that this is some tip-top denial you have there lad.

>>8875847
Just because something exists doesn't mean it has a cause.

>>8875847
But cause would need to be before beginning, which it can't, therefore cause doesn't exist.

>>8875847
Causality requires time. Time only exists inside our universe. The whole notion of the universe having a "beginning" is absurd too, as this would likewise require the existence of some sort of a "time outside of time". Anon, please.

>>8875844
Fuck off Bill

>>8875847
The question "what was before the beginning of time" makes about as much sense as "what's to the left of the x=0 length".

>>8875851
>>8875861
>>8875864
>>8875876
if something exists AND it had 'a beginning'... then that demands it had a cause. We can prove the universe had a beginning ie the singularity/background radiation/proton decay/cooling. We can infer that this was the creation event that caused the xyz(t) plane, mass, energy also.

Saying this beginning had no cause is either saying we don't exist (causation doesn't exist) or there exists a cosmic rule of shit happening for no reason that exists outside of time/space.

Saying causation doesn't exist outside of time demands that there be some unknown other rule set that exists outside of time space. You are just kicking the can down the road. ie deny deny deny

>lol you believe God created the universe? lmao what a fucking retard
>it was actually dark energy driven quantum fluctuations that popped virtual photons into a condensed state creating a singularity which created everything

>>8875911
>don't worry about 'proofs' just abandon God and pretend this is an equally valid creation story - all hail Bill Nye!

>>8875907
>if something exists AND it had 'a beginning'... then that demands it had a cause

An argument predicated on nothing

>>8875907
>if something exists AND it had 'a beginning'... then that demands it had a cause.
Actualy, srsly and nonironically lrn2kant.

File: [SSP] Kidou Senkan Nadesico - 03 (HD Remaster)[A03710EF].mkv_snapshot_15.20_[2015.02.08_23.55.01].jpg (49KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x480px

>>8875907
>if something exists AND it had 'a beginning'... then that demands it had a cause
A cause doesn't exist without time. You're too brainwashed, give up.

>>8875907
This is the most retarded form of suggestive "logic" I've ever read.

I'm a brainlet but even I can plainly see that just because something exists doesn't mean it has a cause.

>>8875998
Why did it happen 13.8 bn years ago?
Why did it not happen 40 bn years ago?

>>8875998

>just because something exists doesn't mean it has a cause.

Then why is it there in the first place?

i always get really anxious/panic-y when i read these type of threads for some reason

>>8875365
A popular explaination for the big bang theory is that explains how stuff gone after the so called creation or beggining.

It's a backtrack trough laws of physics until a very very small point where we know that all matter was condensed and quantum mechanics still ruled, but smaller that that or so to speak - there's a barrier from there we can't pass because law of physics suddenly make 0 sense.

So big bang theory is a legitimate theory that describes the evolution of matter from a point smaller than an atom to today state of it, but beyond that we don't have solid models.

>>8875461
Causality exists tho.

>>8875720
Maybe when we understand gravity and master space travel we will be able to probe outside of our universe trough gravity and understand more.

Universe is probably some sort of recursion

>>8876058
Explain. How do you infer causality from experience? I'm not memeing right now.

>>8875365
Infinitesimal points with infinite density don't and have never existed. It's just a breakdown of the formalism. "Big Bang" is just a placeholder

If you take a good look at how things are in the universe you will quickly notice that the universe seems to love inflation. There are countless galaxies with countless solar systems, but only in very few of those there are planets that suit life. On earth a plant will create countless seeds of itself that will be spread all over the place by the winds and by the animals, only so one of those seeds might succeed and become a plant itself. It took countless species and millions of years of evolution and millions of dead ends until one of these specieses finally became self-concsious.

So I think that this method also explains how the universe is created. There has to be a countless number of proto-universes within the universe and only very, very few of those will one day match all the criteria to become another universe again. So what are these proto-universes? My best guess is black holes. Probably some kind of special black hole will suddenly start expanding and become a new universe, and so then the circle begins anew.

>>8876094
babby's first anthropic principle.

>>8876060
You're not going to probe anything outside of event horizon.

>>8876024
Because it expanded from singularity.

>>8875365
Was there a space and time prior to our own? Is it possible a black hole or quasar obsorbed so much energy in a previous universe that it caused a big bang? (Not sure if quasars absorb energy) Are we only assuming this universe that we're in was the first due to human arrogance?

>>8876069
It's inferred from math
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko

you're on science board not philosophy board where your knowledge comes from day dreaming and direct experience.

>>8876163
There's no gravity feedback if you hit a black hole with a wave? Are you 100% sure?

>>8876008
Because it follows from the laws of the universe that we arise 13.8 billion years after its creation.

Quantum fluctuations

>>8875365
Time started at that exact moment.

>>8876198
>It's inferred from math
>you're on science board not philosophy board where your knowledge comes from day dreaming and direct experience.
sorry, I should have noticed earlier that I'm being trolled.

>>8875365
Perhaps singularity caused the big bang. Once everything is collected into a black hole creating singularity in the universe, it explodes again. Creating everything we know again, and then proceeding to suck us all back towards singularity. My bet it that this is a cycle of sorts that keeps on going.

>>8876344
The big crunch doesn't really make sense though, based on the fact that space is constantly expanding, and speeding up instead of slowing down.

The Big Crunch would make sense if expansion was slowing as opposed to speeding up.

>>8875404
I like the way you think. Dark memes sound retarded to me too.

>>8876353
>the mass on the spring will never return to the origin, as it is accelerating away from it at the moment

>>8876353
Supposedly there is thing thing called the great attractor which pulls everything towards what is considered the center of the universe.

Based on what >>8875404 said, it seems plausible that the universe can still expand while everything is being pulled towards a black hole at the center of it.

>>8876330
You're the one demanding proof for physical laws from direct experience.

>>8876353
Heh, I guess I will stop filling my car with gas then, Its speeding up after all, so there has to be an infinite energy source behind it.

>>8876377
At least I'm not the one who mixes and matches inductive and deductive reasoning when it suits me.

>>8876366
>>8876401
I want the big crunch to be real, but most theoretical physicists would agree that it's an unlikely scenario at best.

No. There is way too much evidence in the big bag. The CMB is absolute evidence of it: how it explains isotropy and clumpiness of the unvierse, how the spectrum shows properties of the early universe, and how it shows how those harmonics in the early universe were suddenly disrupted the universe became transparent. The big bang is basically irrefutable.

>>8875365
Wait, it was complete?

>>8876415
I don't disagree with our current models, I just disagree with his logic.

Is this the new lovecraft thread?

File: 59e0c794-901d-46a3-b218-2f6d48103b65..png (695KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

695KB, 1000x1500px

>>8876408

>>8876468
oh fuck you.

File: theuniverse.png (370KB, 914x606px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 914x606px

heres my idea

hope u like it

>>8876353
Where this accelerated expansion meme comes from? Anyway, suppose we have a singularity - a non-moving mass and an inflationary force. The force would set mass into motion, it can't achieve needed speed instantaneously.

>>8876504
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

>>8876509
>The accelerated expansion was discovered in 1998
Huh? Only recently there were attempts to measure curvature as it would determine the ultimate future of the universe.

>>8876370
Don't know about a great attractor but black holes do seem to collect each other over billions of years. The black holes inside the Milky way and andromeda will eventually collide. Maybe one day it'll become to big and create big bang?

>>8876520
all of our data points to the fact that, at this moment, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

The implications of this are debated.

>>8875365
I made a post awhile back asking about this and only got a bunch of replies telling me to kill myself. Why sci, why?

>>8876522
I made a thread about this the other day, and discovered supermassive black holes generally have a maximum solar mass limit, which is roughly 50 billion solar masses, before they start spitting out matter.

Therefore hypermassive black holes, as I call them, should not exist.

>>8876536
>replies telling me to kill myself
fourchomp works in mysterious ways.

>>8876635
What are the solar masses you speak of? Are they stars? And I also have to wonder, weren't some scientists looking into engineering black holes at one point?

>>8876764
It's the equivalent of the mass of the sun.

>>8875365
we have a small window to say it's possible.

my doubt is in this window and infinite density existing, imho there is no infinite density, we just don't have the math to figure out what ultra high density zones are

>>8875365
Every theory is incomplete, Anon. Science is a modular set of "good enough" descriptions of reality, with compensations tacked on wherever the models are insufficient so we can use them until something better comes along.

And that's okay.

test

>>8875851
>retarded

>>8875365
Of course it's incomplete, what kind of question is this?

>>8875404
As in dark matter? The thing that has a gravitational pull that we can measure?

>>8875365
Big Bang theory is complete once Leonard and Sheldon make love.

File: dong universe.png (1MB, 1280x832px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x832px

>>8875365

>>8875447
>infinitely dense singularity

What does this even mean?Just that the mass is packed as tight as possible? When you say infinite I think never ending

>>8876046
same lol, existential crisis tier shit over here

>>8879515
infinitely dense, as in an infinite amount of mass packed into a certain volume of a finite mass packed into an infinitesimally small point

>>8879539

Where did the infinite mass come from?
What form does it take if is infinitely small?
Must be infinitely smaller than even quarks I guess.

>>8879549
That's the whole question, and the main reason why the big bang theory is incomplete.

If you just assume it exists, it's relatively consistent with experimental data, but there's no good explanation for what happens at t=0 or why that even exists.

>>8879549
It makes more sense if the Big Crunch were more plausible then it is seen. Universe expands until it can't expand anymore, starts shrinking, and eventually compresses to a size of smaller then an atom.

>>8879554
>>8879562

Is there a difference to math infinite and infinite as used conventionally meaning "never ending"?

>>8879578
I'd like to think infinite in this way just represents a number not yet known, or unknowable.

>>8875365
Given an infinite amount of time, the object has to explode some time

>that shape

Gabriel's horn!

It all makes sense now

>>8875911
>>lol you believe God created the universe? lmao what a fucking retard
>>it was actually dark energy driven quantum fluctuations that popped virtual photons into a condensed state creating a singularity which created everything
What are all those energies and particles and why aren't they God?