Alternate theory for the birth of our universe

[Sheepun]

So far the Big Bang theory is the most solid explanation for the birth of our universe, but i always found the idea of a singularity instantly spewing out a massive quantity of matter was uncanny. So i pondered upon it for a while, and came up with a theory that would explain events prior to that of the Big Bang, based on what we know about physics so far. In this theory, the Big Bang isn't t=0, but just an event in space.

Just a quick warning first: I am no physicist, i am just an amateur that daydreams a lot and think about stuff a lot. Also english is not my native language, so i apologize for any mistakes.

I also invite anyone and everyone to poke holes, deconstruct and falsify my theory. If not, to provide help on how to better construct it. Thanks! So here it goes:

Snowball Universe:

The Universe starts out as an infinite void, with nothing but infinite space and virtual particles popping in and out of existence.

On really rare occasion, bits of matter will clump together. I'm going to refer mostly about matter, but you can assume the same happens for antimatter too.

The clumps of matter will interact with each other and merge. Clumps of matter that come into contact with clumps of antimatter won't mutually annihilate each other. When their surface come into contact, the burst of energy released will make them "skip" against each other. Much like how the Leidenfrost effect works.

Clumps of matter will keep on getting bigger, eventually forming objects with a mass equal to that of a black hole or greater. This hapens in an uniform pattern in the infinity of space.

Our pocket of the Universe starts when two black holes with each a mass vastly superior to that of our observable universe came into contact. I'm going to refer to those hypermassive black holes as "Nemesis". The collision resulted in a massive burst of matter, to which we attribute the Big Bang. Instead of being a singularity, it is actually a collision point.

What this theory explains:

-Where all the antimatter is. Our Universe is an agglomerate of matter. If we could peek further into the Multiverse, we could see agglomerates of antimatter similar to ours.

-The missing mass in our universe. This theory explains the mystery of dark matter, the gravitationnal anomaly actualy comes from the Nemesis.

-Where our Universe came from and where we are headed. This theory is based on what we already know about space and particles. Matter has a tendancy to clump together, and the Nemesis will keep on getting bigger and bigger and merge with each other.

-The actual Multiverse is much less dense than our Universe. Our Universe is just an agglomerate of matter around a Nemesis, much like an accretion disk. If we could zoom out and see the whole Multiverse, it would be similar to our Universe, less dense, and instead of galaxies, it would be made out of multiple pocket universes made of either matter or antimatter.

What we could look for:

- Remnants of matter that orbited our Nemesis from before it's collision, the Big Bang. Since the collisions are really rare events, chances are that whatever matter was left was in a state close to that of "Heat Death". That matter has possibly merged with that produced from the Big Bang.

-Presence of other universes or antiverses. If their existence is real, their light has probably reached us, but has probably redshifted to the point that we can't perceive it with our current technology.

-If we really are orbiting a Nemesis, we should be able to detect its gravitationnal field and its effect on objects around it. Our universe should also begin to form an accretion disk around its Nemesis.

-The possible "death" of the Multiverse. The Multiverse started with virtual particles merging together into clumps of matter and antimatter, and has been growing since then, at a very slow rate, even astronomically speaking. Either the Multiverse will reach an equilibrium in which it's growing density allows enough interaction between matter and antimatter to balance the creation of new matter, or it will keep on growing, becoming denser, to the point where the infinity of space itself is filled with mass with a density similar to the core of a black hole, at which point it will either stay completly filled, or will instantly vanish from all the matter and antimatter being forced together, starting the multiverse anew with a complete void.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Sheepun said:

So far the Big Bang theory is the most solid explanation for the birth of our universe, but i always found the idea of a singularity instantly spewing out a massive quantity of matter was uncanny.

Just a few points on this first sentence before I read the rest of your post....

The Big Bang model describes the expansion of the universe from a hot dense state; it doesn't say anything about the birth of the universe. Naive extrapolations lead to a singularity, which is an indication that out theory is no longer applicable at that point (a bit like a dive-by-zero error when solving an equation). No one thinks that the singularity represents any sort of physical reality. We will probably need a quantum theory of gravity before we can fully understand what happened in the early history of the universe. So preliminary attempts to do this suggest the universe could be infinitely old.

And, finally, finding a theory uncanny is not a reason to reject it. Only the evidence can do that.

Now I will read on ...

[Phi for All]

52 minutes ago, Sheepun said:

The Universe starts out as an infinite void, with nothing but infinite space and virtual particles popping in and out of existence.

On really rare occasion, bits of matter will clump together.

Besides disagreeing with the evidence we have, this seems to be contradictory. How do you go from "nothing but infinite space and virtual particles" to suddenly having "bits of matter" to "clump together"? Using various methods, we've been able to show how the universe developed from an earlier hot, dense state. We can only go back to just after the period of rapid expansion began, and no further, but none of the evidence so far would suggest an infinite void, or that matter was never present at any time.

We also have no evidence for more than our own observable universe. 

52 minutes ago, Sheepun said:

The Multiverse started with virtual particles merging together into clumps of matter and antimatter, and has been growing since then, at a very slow rate, even astronomically speaking. Either the Multiverse will reach an equilibrium in which it's growing density allows enough interaction between matter and antimatter to balance the creation of new matter, or it will keep on growing, becoming denser, to the point where the infinity of space itself is filled with mass with a density similar to the core of a black hole, at which point it will either stay completly filled, or will instantly vanish from all the matter and antimatter being forced together, starting the multiverse anew with a complete void.

You've misunderstood the matter/anti-matter relationship.

52 minutes ago, Sheepun said:

Since the collisions are really rare events, chances are that whatever matter was left was in a state close to that of "Heat Death". That matter has possibly merged with that produced from the Big Bang.

Matter was not "produced" from the BB. All matter was already there, in an extremely dense, extremely hot state. Expansion continued as the matter and space cooled.

It also seems clear you think a universe can have something "outside" it, something that could orbit it or form an accretion disk. The BBT describes through the LCDM model how the early universe expanded to it's present size without expanding into anything. We often speak of the observable universe, which is finite, but we don't know if the entire universe is finite or infinite. But our definition of it is that the universe encompasses everything there is. It's hard to wrap your mind around, because we always think of expanding things expanding INTO something else. 

Theories in science aren't just educated guesses. Theory is as strong as it gets in science, and the best theories have mountains of supportive evidence and are constantly tested against nature by experiment. If a theory doesn't make sense to you, you should study it harder, since it represents the best current explanation we have. Incredulity is no reason to start making things up.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Sheepun said:

The Universe starts out as an infinite void, with nothing but infinite space and virtual particles popping in and out of existence.

On really rare occasion, bits of matter will clump together. I'm going to refer mostly about matter, but you can assume the same happens for antimatter too.

We know (from the evidence) that the universe was once full of hot dense matter so this "infinite void" doesn't seem to be consistent with the evidence.

2 hours ago, Sheepun said:

Clumps of matter will keep on getting bigger, eventually forming objects with a mass equal to that of a black hole or greater.

A black hole doesn't have a particular mass. It can, in principle, have any mass. It is concentrating that mass in a volume smaller than the Schwarzschild radius that makes it into a black hole. I'm not sure that lumps of matter casually bumping into each other can lead to that (if it could, I would expect the solar system to be full of black holes).

2 hours ago, Sheepun said:

Our pocket of the Universe starts when two black holes with each a mass vastly superior to that of our observable universe came into contact. I'm going to refer to those hypermassive black holes as "Nemesis". The collision resulted in a massive burst of matter, to which we attribute the Big Bang. Instead of being a singularity, it is actually a collision point.

If two black holes came into contact, they would merge to form a larger black hole not a burst of matter. (We have observed this happen via gravitational waves.)

Your description seems to imply an explosion of matter into empty space. That is not consistent with the Big Bang model or the evidence.

2 hours ago, Sheepun said:

-Where all the antimatter is. Our Universe is an agglomerate of matter. If we could peek further into the Multiverse, we could see agglomerates of antimatter similar to ours.

People have suggested this: that there might be distant areas of the universe that are made of antimatter. Various observations have been made to see if there is any evidence for this. I don't think it can be ruled out yet.

2 hours ago, Sheepun said:

-The missing mass in our universe. This theory explains the mystery of dark matter, the gravitationnal anomaly actualy comes from the Nemesis.

How would that explain the rotation curves of galaxies?

2 hours ago, Sheepun said:

-The actual Multiverse is much less dense than our Universe. Our Universe is just an agglomerate of matter around a Nemesis, much like an accretion disk. If we could zoom out and see the whole Multiverse, it would be similar to our Universe, less dense, and instead of galaxies, it would be made out of multiple pocket universes made of either matter or antimatter.

There are mainstream theories that suggest multiple island universes (and multiple inflationary processes creating new universes all the time).

So you seem to have a few ideas which are not really consistent with the evidence and a couple that others have considered.

[MigL]

And that's not what happens when two massive Black Holes come into contact...

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Matter was not "produced" from the BB. All matter was already there, in an extremely dense, extremely hot state. Expansion continued as the matter and space cooled.

From the reputable material I have read, hypothetically our first fundamental particles arose when the Superforce started to decouple, at around 10 to the minus 35th or thereabouts, as temperatures started to drop. This created phase transitions and false vacuums, the excesses in energy going into making up our first fundamentals. At 3 minutes post BB, our first atomic nuclei had formed as protons and neutrons formed and temperatures and pressures continued to drop. 380,000 years later conditions were such that our first elements formed when electrons were able to couple to atomic nuclei.

Couldn't this be seen as matter produces as a result of the BB?

3 hours ago, Sheepun said:

So far the Big Bang theory is the most solid explanation for the birth of our universe, but i always found the idea of a singularity instantly spewing out a massive quantity of matter was uncanny. So i pondered upon it for a while, and came up with a theory that would explain events prior to that of the Big Bang, based on what we know about physics so far. In this theory, the Big Bang isn't t=0, but just an event in space.

The BB is a theory of the evolution of space and time, [henceforth known as spacetime] from t+10-43 seconds. It says nothing about how or why the BB happened. The timeline of the BB from t+10-43 seconds is illustrated here...http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

Much of the timeline is validated in particle accelerators and such, while the closer we approach the t+10-43 seconds, the less certain we are of the exact methodology.

Also much speculation abounds re the subject of the how and why of the BB itself, some more apparently logical and acceptable then others.  The following seems likely in my opinion, while still being somewhat speculative in nature.....https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by beecee

[Phi for All]

53 minutes ago, beecee said:

From the reputable material I have read, hypothetically our first fundamental particles arose when the Superforce started to decouple, at around 10 to the minus 35th or thereabouts, as temperatures started to drop. This created phase transitions and false vacuums, the excesses in energy going into making up our first fundamentals. At 3 minutes post BB, our first atomic nuclei had formed as protons and neutrons formed and temperatures and pressures continued to drop. 380,000 years later conditions were such that our first elements formed when electrons were able to couple to atomic nuclei.

Couldn't this be seen as matter produces as a result of the BB?

It could, but that's not the impression of the explanation I got from the OP.

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It could, but that's not the impression of the explanation I got from the OP.

Yep, agreed. And may I add that the following should be deemed compulsory reading for any lay person and/or amateur that believes he has constructed or formulated a better explanation then the present incumbent models of the Cosmos.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Theories in science aren't just educated guesses. Theory is as strong as it gets in science, and the best theories have mountains of supportive evidence and are constantly tested against nature by experiment. If a theory doesn't make sense to you, you should study it harder, since it represents the best current explanation we have. Incredulity is no reason to start making things up.

 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Sheepun said:

What we could look for:

- Remnants of matter that orbited our Nemesis from before it's collision, the Big Bang. Since the collisions are really rare events, chances are that whatever matter was left was in a state close to that of "Heat Death". That matter has possibly merged with that produced from the Big Bang.

-Presence of other universes or antiverses. If their existence is real, their light has probably reached us, but has probably redshifted to the point that we can't perceive it with our current technology.

-If we really are orbiting a Nemesis, we should be able to detect its gravitationnal field and its effect on objects around it. Our universe should also begin to form an accretion disk around its Nemesis.

-The possible "death" of the Multiverse. The Multiverse started with virtual particles merging together into clumps of matter and antimatter, and has been growing since then, at a very slow rate, even astronomically speaking. Either the Multiverse will reach an equilibrium in which it's growing density allows enough interaction between matter and antimatter to balance the creation of new matter, or it will keep on growing, becoming denser, to the point where the infinity of space itself is filled with mass with a density similar to the core of a black hole, at which point it will either stay completly filled, or will instantly vanish from all the matter and antimatter being forced together, starting the multiverse anew with a complete void.

 I have to give some credit here. Most speculations don't bother with making predictions, and it's important in science to make sure our explanations can be matched against actual experience. Unfortunately, when we try to detect the evidence predicted, we come up short.

I have to give some positive rep for the phrase, "What we could look for:"

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I have to give some credit here.

Ditto.

[Sheepun]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Besides disagreeing with the evidence we have, this seems to be contradictory. How do you go from "nothing but infinite space and virtual particles" to suddenly having "bits of matter" to "clump together"? Using various methods, we've been able to show how the universe developed from an earlier hot, dense state. We can only go back to just after the period of rapid expansion began, and no further, but none of the evidence so far would suggest an infinite void, or that matter was never present at any time.

We also have no evidence for more than our own observable universe. 

You've misunderstood the matter/anti-matter relationship.

Matter was not "produced" from the BB. All matter was already there, in an extremely dense, extremely hot state. Expansion continued as the matter and space cooled.

It also seems clear you think a universe can have something "outside" it, something that could orbit it or form an accretion disk. The BBT describes through the LCDM model how the early universe expanded to it's present size without expanding into anything. We often speak of the observable universe, which is finite, but we don't know if the entire universe is finite or infinite. But our definition of it is that the universe encompasses everything there is. It's hard to wrap your mind around, because we always think of expanding things expanding INTO something else. 

Theories in science aren't just educated guesses. Theory is as strong as it gets in science, and the best theories have mountains of supportive evidence and are constantly tested against nature by experiment. If a theory doesn't make sense to you, you should study it harder, since it represents the best current explanation we have. Incredulity is no reason to start making things up.

Gotta say that my idea requires us to assume both that the BB is just a cosmological event and that space is infinite and that our universe is expanding into "something". Both of wich we have no evidence for.

The extremely dense, extremely hot state that our universe started as could be the byproduct of two hypermassive blackholes colliding. Black holes merging together produces a massive amount of energy that could form primordial particles and eventually the very matter our universe is made from. But as i explained, it would require two objects that have a mass way above that of our universe to produce such an event.

Basically my idea explains how our BB was caused by the collision of two massive objects.

Sorry if i glanced over a lot of details, i wanted to make it short but it lacks a lot of clarity.

Our lack of evidence suggests that our universe is innately positive in particles (there are more matter than antimatter) My idea and other theories propose a model of a multiverse in which there are regions of space rich in matter, and other regions rich in antimatter. Other theories say that matter forming at a higher rate than antimatter is an innate property of matter itself. For my idea i stick to the former. Although i will drop the parts about antimatter, as it is irrelevant to the BB event.

My idea proposes that the universe started out as a quantum vacuum. Sometimes virtual particles would interact with each other and form a stable state. Given an infinite amount of time, that matter would eventually coalesce, much like how gas>stars>galaxies>clusters. And much like how objects like galaxies and black holes can merge, that matter would form into more and more massive objects. The BB would be a consequence from the collision of two of those objects.

Even the existence of life in such a system would support such an idea. While there are matter that coalesces from a vacuum, only a rich environment like that produced by a BB would allow the production of enough stars, and thus, heavy elements, essential for life.

Maybe my idea is just a wild guess, I'm just trying to make sense of it all. But as pointed out multiple times in replies, current models are based on evidences, and my idea would require us to make observations that are either hidden past the edge of our observable universe or too redshifted.

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

We know (from the evidence) that the universe was once full of hot dense matter so this "infinite void" doesn't seem to be consistent with the evidence.

A black hole doesn't have a particular mass. It can, in principle, have any mass. It is concentrating that mass in a volume smaller than the Schwarzschild radius that makes it into a black hole. I'm not sure that lumps of matter casually bumping into each other can lead to that (if it could, I would expect the solar system to be full of black holes).

If two black holes came into contact, they would merge to form a larger black hole not a burst of matter. (We have observed this happen via gravitational waves.)

Your description seems to imply an explosion of matter into empty space. That is not consistent with the Big Bang model or the evidence.

People have suggested this: that there might be distant areas of the universe that are made of antimatter. Various observations have been made to see if there is any evidence for this. I don't think it can be ruled out yet.

How would that explain the rotation curves of galaxies?

There are mainstream theories that suggest multiple island universes (and multiple inflationary processes creating new universes all the time).

So you seem to have a few ideas which are not really consistent with the evidence and a couple that others have considered.

The infinite void would be a state prior that that of the BB. My theory doesn't exclude the big bang, it just states it as a cosmological event.

Sorry if i glanced over the formation of the hypermassive blackholes i mentionned. If the universe prior to the BB was much less dense than that of our observable universe, i'm not too sure if there would be stars and galaxy forming, but eventually all that matter would coalesce, and possibly achieve such mass that they'd become black holes. So basically, my idea proposes that the universe prior to the BB is just space filled with black holes.

From what i've read, two black holes merging also produces a burst of energy (plus gravitionnal waves), unless i'm wrong, which means that i was misled by the sources i've seen, and my idea crumbles. If two objects had enough mass and came into contact, they could produce an amount of energy that would be on par with that of the big bang. My idea just expands on events prior than what our observations can tell.

Hm, i don't have enough knowledge about the rotation curves of galaxies. But if our universe were to orbit an hypermassive black hole (or Nemesis as i liked to call them) maybe there would be a correlation. I know that the Dark Flow theory points toward a point in space outside of our observable universe, although it is debated, but maybe this is further support for my idea.

 

Btw thanks everyone for the quick replies.

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, Sheepun said:

Sorry if i glanced over the formation of the hypermassive blackholes i mentionned. If the universe prior to the BB was much less dense than that of our observable universe, i'm not too sure if there would be stars and galaxy forming, but eventually all that matter would coalesce, and possibly achieve such mass that they'd become black holes. So basically, my idea proposes that the universe prior to the BB is just space filled with black holes.

5

But if there is enough matter to form black holes, it would have had to first form stars and planets first. Unless I"m mistaken?

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Sheepun said:

The BB would be a consequence from the collision of two of those objects.

When BHs collide we will only get bigger, more massive BHs.

 

Quote

Maybe my idea is just a wild guess, I'm just trying to make sense of it all. But as pointed out multiple times in replies, current models are based on evidences, and my idea would require us to make observations that are either hidden past the edge of our observable universe or too redshifted.

That's how scientific theories are formulated sure, and that's why we have yet to have a validated accepted QGT...simply put, at this stage of our technology, we just cannot observe at those quantum scales.

Quote

The infinite void would be a state prior that that of the BB. My theory doesn't exclude the big bang, it just states it as a cosmological event.

Spacetime "may" have existed before t+10-43 seconds, but it would be in a state unknown to us....foamy quantum foam may be an apt description.

Quote

Sorry if i glanced over the formation of the hypermassive blackholes i mentionned. If the universe prior to the BB was much less dense than that of our observable universe, i'm not too sure if there would be stars and galaxy forming, but eventually all that matter would coalesce, and possibly achieve such mass that they'd become black holes. So basically, my idea proposes that the universe prior to the BB is just space filled with black holes.

It has been hypothesised that the BB may have also evolved micro or quantum BHs in those incredible pressures and temperatures just post BB. but again, even if billions or trillions of these micro/quantum BHs were to have merged/collided, we can only get a larger BH.

 

Quote

From what i've read, two black holes merging also produces a burst of energy (plus gravitionnal waves), unless i'm wrong, which means that i was misled by the sources i've seen, and my idea crumbles. If two objects had enough mass and came into contact, they could produce an amount of energy that would be on par with that of the big bang. My idea just expands on events prior than what our observations can tell.

Yep, and they have been detected 5 times so far, with another detection incident of gravitational radiation from binary Neutron stars mergers/collisions.

Quote

Hm, i don't have enough knowledge about the rotation curves of galaxies.

Simply more matter is needed to explain the rotational speeds of the outer parts of galaxies other then what we already observe..enter DM. And yes admittedly a fudge factor when first hypothesised, but since then.....http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html

 

 

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Sheepun said:

From what i've read, two black holes merging also produces a burst of energy (plus gravitionnal waves), unless i'm wrong

I think that is wrong. The black holes themselves have no mechanism for releasing energy, other than as gravitational waves. There have been no optical counterparts observed for the gravitational waves from black holes.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I think that is wrong. The black holes themselves have no mechanism for releasing energy, other than as gravitational waves. There have been no optical counterparts observed for the gravitational waves from black holes.

Bingo!  if any comment by myself suggested anything else, it was simply because I did not read his "claim" properly...thus.....

9 hours ago, Sheepun said:

From what i've read, two black holes merging also produces a burst of energy (plus gravitionnal waves), unless i'm wrong, which means that i was misled by the sources i've seen, and my idea crumbles. If two objects had enough mass and came into contact, they could produce an amount of energy that would be on par with that of the big bang. My idea just expands on events prior than what our observations can tell.

 

5 hours ago, beecee said:

Yep, and they have been detected 5 times so far, with another detection incident of gravitational radiation from binary Neutron stars mergers/collisions.

The EMR burst of energy only was evident with the binary star collision.

Edited February 6, 2018 by beecee