Hi

I had a thought that I would like to share and have your opinion on it.

After Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe, the only explaination to it was that the expansion came from a big explosion: the Big Bang theory was born.

Now we have other data from the distant supernova survey that tell us that the expansion is accelerating and to explain it we supposed some kind of dark energy with quality opposed to gravity, some kind of repelling force.

Here is my thought: with dark energy we don't need to suppose a big bang.

The rought picture of the motion in the universe is:

A) at big scale we see things going away from each other (dark energy)

and B) at small scale we see things going toward each other (gravity).

If we reverse that motion and go back in time we will see:

A) at big scale a contraction (the inverse of expansion caused by dark energy)

B) and at small scale an expansion (the inverse of gravity).

The big void between galaxy cluster would shrink and the matter will spread. At some point in the past we may see an almost homogenous matter distribution.

I don't know if you see the picture, don't hesitate to ask me and I will try to explain it more. I don't have the math and numbers to verify if it's mathematically possible, maybe someone here can.

Thanks

Jacques

I get you, I've actually thought of that before. A shot time after the big bang matter was homogenous, it became less so as clumps of matter formed.

 

I dont know if there are any implications in this though.

The point here is that maybe the bigbang doesn't need to have occured in order the see what we see today. The size of the universe may have been the same as today. Matter was almost evenly distributed with only small empty region. Gravity started to act because of these small pertubation. The empty region started to grow and the zero point energy (dark energy) started to act.

After Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe' date=' the only explaination to it was that the expansion came from a big explosion: the Big Bang theory was born.

[/quote']

Not true. Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory provided an alternative that was not largely abandoned till the discovery of the cosmic background radiation in 1963(?).

Your right there were other theories that where abandoned. May be these theories would benefit of the new data about the dark energy ???

Why does the discovery of the cosmic background radiation putted an end to Hoyle theory ?

Thanks

It matched a key prediction of the Big Bang theory, and was not predicted by Steady State. (I think Hoyle later tried to shoe-horn an explantion for it into his SS theory.)