Jump to content
IsiacTorres

What if the "Big Bang" was just the supernova of a star?

Recommended Posts

As you probably know, inside of a nebula gas particles attract each other and start to clump up. The larger the clumps get the higher the gravitational pull of the whole, until eventually the pressure in the core is so great fusion starts to take place, lighting it up like a spherical candle. After the star has lived and expanded into a giant star it dies out and explodes or implodes, possibly making another nebula or forming a neutron star. Well i was thinking about this while coming up with a name for my film production (irrelevant), and i began to think about how the universe is still expanding. What if our universe does the same thing? It seems as though everything in our observable universe goes through cycles, so don't you think it would be logical that energy did the same?

post-105086-0-61155900-1400394485.jpg


I apologize if my grammar is bad or my question is mixed up, my mind is currently fried for other reasons.

Edited by IsiacTorres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good you are thinking creatively, but there are a few reasons why that doesn't match the evidence that we have. Let's start with the easiest to understand and go from there.

 

First, if it was a simple matter of all the matter in the universe being part of a single star that then went nova, that primordial star would have immediately collapsed into a black hole. There would have been no star at all and thus no potential to go nova.

 

Second, despite the name, the Big Bang was not actually an explosion. It's simply an expansion more akin to a balloon being inflated than a grenade going off. It's also an expansion of space, which carries the matter along with it, rather than an outward expansion of matter.

 

Which brings me to my third and final point. There is no center from which everything is expanding. The expansion is happening everywhere in the universe at once. The observable universe is a finite "bubble" of sorts with us at the center and everything expanding away from us in every direction, but this is exactly what the universe looks like from every pointin the universe.

 

The bubble is a result of the speed of light. The farther you get from Earth, the older the picture that we see gets. The sun is 8 light minutes away, so when you look at the sun (not recommended) that's what it looked like 8 minutes ago. The next closest star is 4 light years away, so when you look at it, you're seeing what it looked like 4 years ago.

 

Once you're looking far enough away, the distance is so great that it would take light longer than the universe has existed to reach us from there. That defines the boundary of our observable universe, and since it's a set distance away from us in every direction, there is a sphere around the Earth with a radius of ~13 billion light years that encompasses the observable universe (of Earth).

 

Everything is expanding away from us, because the expansion is caused by the addition of "more space" between points rather than actual movement. Going back to that balloon, if you were shrunk down and plopped on that balloon before it was inflated, you could draw little dots on the surface all around you. When the balloon inflates, every dot will appear to move away from you, and the farther they are from you, the faster they'll seem to be move. But that will be how it looks from any point on the surface of the balloon and how it looks to all of the dots as well. In reality, the balloon is just stretching and there is now more balloon between you and each dot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Bang is Fake. It's not proved true yet.

I am not seeing you provide an alternative either. So far, the Big Bang theory matches with our observations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Bang is Fake. It's not proved true yet.

For a start, science isn't in the business of proving things right. It just proves that some things can't be right.

However, in the meantime perhaps you would like to expand on your claim that the big bang is faked- for example, you might like to tell us who is doing the faking, how, and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a start, science isn't in the business of proving things right. It just proves that some things can't be right.

However, in the meantime perhaps you would like to expand on your claim that the big bang is faked- for example, you might like to tell us who is doing the faking, how, and why?

thus that is concluded until devansh can prove the evidence of whatever else may of caused our universe to form

cause it didn't fall out of the sky(cause it is the sky duh!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delta1212 covered the misconceptions of the big bang fairly thoroughly. Its a misleading term. The hot big bang model does not describe the beginning of the universe. It only describes the hot dense state from 10-43 seconds forward. These articles will cover various misconceptions in particular

 

"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies, the balloon analogy here is also handy

 

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion
http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant"
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a start, science isn't in the business of proving things right. It just proves that some things can't be right.

However, in the meantime perhaps you would like to expand on your claim that the big bang is faked- for example, you might like to tell us who is doing the faking, how, and why?

I would disagree on the part that you say "science isn't in the business of proving things right. It just proves that some things can't be right." Science is the idea that you should question everything and create new hypothesis from the observable universe. Though with that may come trying to prove things wrong, it is much too broad to assume it only has one purpose.

It's good you are thinking creatively, but there are a few reasons why that doesn't match the evidence that we have. Let's start with the easiest to understand and go from there.

 

First, if it was a simple matter of all the matter in the universe being part of a single star that then went nova, that primordial star would have immediately collapsed into a black hole. There would have been no star at all and thus no potential to go nova.

 

Second, despite the name, the Big Bang was not actually an explosion. It's simply an expansion more akin to a balloon being inflated than a grenade going off. It's also an expansion of space, which carries the matter along with it, rather than an outward expansion of matter.

 

Which brings me to my third and final point. There is no center from which everything is expanding. The expansion is happening everywhere in the universe at once. The observable universe is a finite "bubble" of sorts with us at the center and everything expanding away from us in every direction, but this is exactly what the universe looks like from every pointin the universe.

 

The bubble is a result of the speed of light. The farther you get from Earth, the older the picture that we see gets. The sun is 8 light minutes away, so when you look at the sun (not recommended) that's what it looked like 8 minutes ago. The next closest star is 4 light years away, so when you look at it, you're seeing what it looked like 4 years ago.

 

Once you're looking far enough away, the distance is so great that it would take light longer than the universe has existed to reach us from there. That defines the boundary of our observable universe, and since it's a set distance away from us in every direction, there is a sphere around the Earth with a radius of ~13 billion light years that encompasses the observable universe (of Earth).

 

Everything is expanding away from us, because the expansion is caused by the addition of "more space" between points rather than actual movement. Going back to that balloon, if you were shrunk down and plopped on that balloon before it was inflated, you could draw little dots on the surface all around you. When the balloon inflates, every dot will appear to move away from you, and the farther they are from you, the faster they'll seem to be move. But that will be how it looks from any point on the surface of the balloon and how it looks to all of the dots as well. In reality, the balloon is just stretching and there is now more balloon between you and each dot.

I love your approach to the idea, instead of trying to shoot it down you stated that it does not clearly match the evidence we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have no idea how gigantic the star might have been in another dimension that collapsed and created our Big Bang, but that's my theory, as well. It's called a 'white hole'. Gravity would not have pulled everything back immediately because gravity spreads out into 9 dimensions, not just three. Terribly, terribly weak, compared to the other three forces.

When a star collapses to form a supermassive black hole, the fabric separating our three dimensions from others is torn and the material is filling up the 'space', maybe a millimeter away from us, yet undetectable, except for the effects of its gravity.

I predict if we use gravitational lensing to determine sizes of dark matter clumps around our galaxies, then we will see that, as the black hole swallows material, the 'surrounding' dark matter clumps will grow. The dark matter scaffolding wasn't already there to create galaxies, but, rather, the 'scaffolding' is being created by dark matter, the gravity of which is maintaining stars in orbits around the black hole.

Remember the mysterious light that appeared in the heavens light years away that slowly grew, before shrinking and disappearing? That was a star collapsing from another dimension into ours, spilling its star stuff into our Universe.

I have a high school education, so blast away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its been proposed, by Polowskii. Its also been shown not to fit observations. Rather than repeat the details I posted in another thread I'll direct you there, A white hole hypothesis suffers the same problems

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83076-what-caused-the-big-bang/?p=805902

 

here is the key points

 

problem 1) a rotating universe cannot be isotropic and homogeneous. It will always have a preferred location and direction. Regardless of how slow it is rotating.

problem 2) a rotating black hole would impart that rotation upon our universe.

problem 3) Poplowskii's model does not have the cosmological constant, expansion is due to the rotation.

problem 4) where does inflation fit in.

problem 5) A black hole does not have consistent feeding rates. Where is the variations in energy density distributions in our universe. If a BH supply starts gobbling a star the energy it takes in increases (more material) Why do we see no evidence of this,? we should see regions of higher energy density expanding outward form the preferred location.

problem 6)Black holes gradually lose angular momentum due to Hawkings radiation in the accretion disk. For technical details see this article. I forgot to add in that other thread that they can also gain angular momentum due to conservation of momentum as they feed

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isiac,

Re

"I would disagree on the part that you say "science isn't in the business of proving things right. It just proves that some things can't be right." Science is the idea that you should question everything and create new hypothesis from the observable universe. Though with that may come trying to prove things wrong, it is much too broad to assume it only has one purpose."

Sorry for not making myself clear.

What I meant- in response to an assertion about things that were not proven true- was that

Where science talks about proof, science isn't in the business of proving things right. It just proves that some things can't be right.

 

So, saying "science hasn't proven that whatever is true" is meaningless. Science nas never proved anything to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you probably know, inside of a nebula gas particles attract each other and start to clump up. The larger the clumps get the higher the gravitational pull of the whole, until eventually the pressure in the core is so great fusion starts to take place, lighting it up like a spherical candle. After the star has lived and expanded into a giant star it dies out and explodes or implodes, possibly making another nebula or forming a neutron star. Well i was thinking about this while coming up with a name for my film production (irrelevant), and i began to think about how the universe is still expanding. What if our universe does the same thing? It seems as though everything in our observable universe goes through cycles, so don't you think it would be logical that energy did the same?

attachicon.gifdownload (84).jpg

I apologize if my grammar is bad or my question is mixed up, my mind is currently fried for other reasons.

 

 

An article describing the possibility that a 4D star collapse into a black hole might have been what formed out universe, is this the star you were talking about?

 

http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting paper, even though its based on string theory D-brane, and its a string theory involving a white hole, here is the arxiv paper from that link

 

the main problem with this proposal is that there is no experimental evidence that string theory is correct. Also this paper does not support inflation where observational data does. for that matter the paper mentions that some observational data rules out aspects of this model in the conclusion.

 

"As we pointed out, the simple model of cosmological perturbations, developed in Sec.4is already ruled out by cosmological observations at>5 sigma
level, as it does not predict any deviations from scale-invariance"

 

Out of the White Hole:A Holographic Origin for the Big Bang

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.1487v2.pdf

 

evidentally the model needs some work

 

by the way the multimedia article had it wrong, its a 5D star collapse into a 4D BH

 

I'm also not sure how they maintain the homogeneous and isotropic nature in our universe, its somehow related to the 4d perfect fluid with the 3d perfect fluid interactions, however my string theory isn't up to par to see the relation ( nor do I plan on learning string theory, too much conjecture for my taste)

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.