Present view: energy/matter was created from nothing during big bang

 

My view:

 

1. Big bang is a collision of matters from 4th/5th dimension (or higher), which extending into 3-D to form our 3-D world.

 

2. Our 3-d world is mostly flat in higher dimensions. However, there are objects that could extend deep in higher dimensions, which should be able to identified since they have unusually higher mass than what we predict by our 3-D measurement (volume/density). They are the source for "dark energy" and "dark matter".

 

 

This is my original work. Please make comments/suggestions.

 

We could share the Nobel Prize if you could provide detail math models.

3. During Big Bang, energy and matter are actually conserved (of course they are interchangeable) -- not created from nothing

That kinda reminds me of the Ekpyrotic model.

what about the issue of fundamentals?.....where did these "matters" come from? Perhaps you are considering them as the steps necessary to create this BB, as a self-contained generator, and not just a "spin-off" from another universe? At some point "these, those, and all other matters" had to originate from the void at least once, even if this is not the first universe (or BB) to come along.

Present view: energy/matter was created from nothing during big bang

This is not the present view, though it is one view among others.

 

1. Big bang is a collision of matters from 4th/5th dimension (or higher), which extending into 3-D to form our 3-D world.

We don't live in a three dimensional world, but in a four dimensional world. Perhaps we are using different terminology. How would you define a dimension?

 

Our 3-d world is mostly flat in higher dimensions. However, there are objects that could extend deep in higher dimensions, which should be able to identified since they have unusually higher mass than what we predict by our 3-D measurement (volume/density). They are the source for "dark energy" and "dark matter".

How does that work? It was my understanding that dark matter is not especially associated with normal matter, but is more distributed. If so, that would invalidate your notion.

 

This is my original work.

Have you posted about it before on other forums? I have certainly seen this idea on the net more than once. I am not accusing you of plagiarism, just curious to find that - apparently - several people come up with the same weak speculation.

 

Please make comments/suggestions.

Take your interest in cosmology and your imagination and invest several years in studying the basics. You can then abandon this current notion or place some flesh on what is, currently, a disjointed and incomplete skeleton.

We could share the Nobel Prize if you could provide detail math models.

 

Why would anyone who did ALL the work share their reward with you? Just because you came up with an idea? It isn't original and doesn't seem to have much basis in reality. Ideas are easy. Anyone can have hundreds of them. The hard part is throwing away the wrong ones.

!

Moderator Note

We demand a certain amount of rigor in these discussions. Please review our guidelines
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

———

Big Snap discussion split http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93856-the-big-snap-split-from-nature-of-the-big-bang/

If you correct your ideas based on the fact that matter and energy are NOT interchangeable, and the fact that the matter and energy available at the time of the Big Bang was NOT "created from nothing", what are you left with?