Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: big-bang as ever-present event?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    21

    big-bang as ever-present event?

    Hi all,

    first of all: I'm not at all an astronomer, just an intu´tive thinker equally fascinated by the powers of human imagination as with the universe.

    My question is this: I find the torus model of the universe very appealing, and I wonder whether it requires a beginning (explosion of a singularity), or could what we came to call the big-bang in fact be an evergoing furnace, continuously expelling fresh outwards curving 'universeness' on one side, curving inward again towards the furnace on the other (and so completing the torus), thereby compressing matter (and space-time fabric itself) too such a degree that big-bang conditions at that 'locality' are permanent?

    Looking forward to your thoughts on this,

    Greetings,

    Guf.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,312
    One big problem with this is the concept of nucleosynthesis. If there was such a furnace then it would be able to 'cook' heavier elements quite easily and the universal abundances we see would look nothing like what we do. The best explanation for what we see is a short period of primordial nucleosynthesis and subsequent enrichment by supernovae.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,506
    Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened -- the Big Bang, the event that began our universe. Why it happened is the greatest mystery we know. That it happened is reasonably clear. - Carl Sagan

    "The torus model" describes one possible shape of our Universe, not a cosmology, which you seem to want to describe. Further, your idea does not describe or explain what is observed, which is kind of the purpose of science (don't quote me on that).
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    21

    could scale be an issue here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    One big problem with this is the concept of nucleosynthesis. If there was such a furnace then it would be able to 'cook' heavier elements quite easily and the universal abundances we see would look nothing like what we do. The best explanation for what we see is a short period of primordial nucleosynthesis and subsequent enrichment by supernovae.
    And it couldn't be that the universe is much larger as we momentarliy think it is, postioning the furnace on such a great space-time distance that it doesn't interfere with this abundances?

    (And if this possibility sounds naieve, it's just a result of my ignorance, I'm just trying to make sure for as far as I can understand, before I rid of the idea).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    There wasn't a "furnace" though. Or, at least, if you use the word furnace to refer to the initial hot dense state, then that was everywhere.

    But, in a sense, the big bang is ever-present as the expansion continues.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,506
    Quote Originally Posted by gufghur View Post
    And it couldn't be that the universe is much larger as we momentarliy think it is...
    We do have a definite visible horizon. Most scientists think that our Universe is indeed much, much larger than what's inside our visible horizon. Alan Guth, who came up with the idea of early cosmic inflation, figured the whole Universe would be something like 1024 times the size of the visible Universe.

    Being outside our vision, we will never be able to see what the rest of the Universe is like. But there is no reason to think it is much different than the expanding visible Universe that we can see.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,312
    Quote Originally Posted by gufghur View Post
    And it couldn't be that the universe is much larger as we momentarliy think it is, postioning the furnace on such a great space-time distance that it doesn't interfere with this abundances?

    (And if this possibility sounds naieve, it's just a result of my ignorance, I'm just trying to make sure for as far as I can understand, before I rid of the idea).
    Then you need a completely new way to make the elements we see. And a new way to hide the effects of the furnace (assuming you are using the concept of the Big Bang as a representation of where everything came from).

    Basically your 'Big Bang' stops being what we call a Big Bang now, you need a whole new cosmology to explain what we do see and you need to explain why the vast majority of the observations we have are consistent with a relatively short lived high energy, dense state that expanded.

    Essentially the elemental abundance we see is consistent with a short lived nucleosynthesis. Your idea would need to explain why that would be the case, why your 'eternal' Bang only affects things for a short time and why there is no evidence at all for a prolonged very high energy and density state. You would also run into issues with things like force unification. The reason the weak force manifests as it does is due to a broken symmetry. There is no reason we know of (although there remains a possibility that there is some underlying theory that might have the answer) for the symmetry to break the same way every time. With an eternal bang the EM and weak force could manifest in very different ways every time a volume of space drops out of the unification realm. We see no evidence of this so again it forces you to impose extra constraints on the idea.

    The more parsimonious explanation is a short lived hot, dense state that expanded. While I am sure you could come up with some toroidal model along the lines you have mentioned it would be a horrendous kludge, relying on a large number of "then MAGIC happens" steps to recreate what we see.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    21
    @strange: yes, in a way that is right, although from the answer from Shaula furhter down, I understand that the actual explosion only lasted a 'moment', what makes us to scavengers on the cosmic debris.

    @Shaula: thank you for clarifying this. No magic needed. I rest my case.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    The more parsimonious explanation is a short lived hot, dense state that expanded.
    This is well explained in Steven Weinberg's The First Three Minutes, A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe [1977]
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •