According to a new paper posted on Arxiv, the Big Bang may not have been what we think it is. In fact, there may have been no Big Bang at all--our universe may have come from an entirely different source.
The Big Bang theory, in very brief form, suggests that the universe began as an extraordinarily, infinitely dense clump of matter that began cooling and expanding, like a balloon inflating. The cooling of the balloon allowed the formation of subatomic particles, and, in turn, stars and planets and lemurs.
There are problems with the Big Bang theory, though until now we haven't really had any better ideas, so we've stuck with it as a plausible explanation for the beginning of the universe. For one, we have no idea what would trigger an ultradense pinpoint of matter to explode outwards. For another, the universe is almost entirely of a uniform temperature, and it's unlikely that, at what we think is a fairly early point in time after the Big Bang, the temperature would have evened out so thoroughly.
This new explanation suggests that the universe might actually be the result of the collapse of a four-dimensional star--a crazy black hole the likes of which we can't even imagine. Some explanation:
The idea is that black holes as we know them--3-D black holes, in our known universe--have as a boundary a 2-D membrane, which is called an "event horizon." But in the event of a 4-D black hole, the event horizon would be a 3-D event horizon--and according to models run by the team, a collapse of a 4-D star would spew material into the 3-D event horizon, slowly expanding over time. That event horizon could be, well, our universe.
This is an early theory; the researchers' own models indicate the idea has promise, but new findings from the European Space Agency found fluctuations in ancient microwaves that match the Big Bang theory but not this new black hole theory. The team says they're still tweaking their models, so nothing's for sure yet. Definitely don't toss out your textbooks; nobody's saying the Big Bang is false, merely that there are other possible explanations. But! Fascinating mind experiment, for sure.
Read more over at Nature.
This hypothesis will probably fizzle out like most. There is an awful lot of evidence suggesting the Big Bang is at least close to what occurred, cheers.
I feel like 4D needs to be further explained...otherwise it just sounds like they had an idea of a magical place that somehow spawned the universe, but that magical place also acts a lot like this universe.
I feel like this theory is just as plausible:
I am the 4th dimension and I pooped out the universe.
What is a 2-D event horizon? Since you can cross into the event horizon from any of the 3 dimensions wouldn't that make it a 3-D event horizon?
"For one, we have no idea what would trigger an ultradense pinpoint of matter to explode outwards."
This sentence is misleading. The common misconception is that matter exploded into empty space like an explosion. According to the theory, everything in the universe occupied such a small physical space because that was all the space that existed at the time. So, matter filled up all the space available in the universe. It was ultradense because there was no where else for matter to go. The big bang is more appropriately described as an abrupt stretching of space. Matter, and everything else in the universe, was just along for the ride.
event horizons are created as full spheres and it seems our universe was formed from a point
Interesting, another take on M-Theory as the creation of the universe heh? I like another take which is that Einstein predicted that White-holes should in fact be real. Yet we have never seen one. Also, as we look at the background, especially the distribution of matter in the universe, we don't see much behind the background radiation. That is that if the distribution of matter were symmetrical, as in the big bang theory, we should see a lot of light from stars that exist in the distant background. However, scientist say that they don't see this and therefore matter distribution isn't even as would be expected with a Big Bang. One theory is that we are looking at the cone of a white hole as we look toward the origin of the big bang. That like looking at a light on the front of the train, we see an orb but we cannot see that it is a cone of light pointing at us and not an orb that is giving off light in 360 degrees. I find it interesting that this new M-theory of creation suggests that our big bang may very well be that white-hole. As our universe would be from the opening of a black hole. Therefore, we are the direct byproduct of a white-hole... the other side of a black-hole.
Hmmmmm... perhaps expansion is only in a certain direction. Without direct observation of the motion of matter in the back of our expanding universe, we have no proof that the bang was symmetrical and not a cone of matter shot from a white-hole.
"Do not try and bend the spoon. That is impossible. Only try and realize the truth - there is no spoon."
If you could only move within the event horizon and only see things that intersected that shell, then the world would be 2-d from your perspective. The fact that your plane was curved wouldn't be immediately obvious. And 3-D creatures could see you, but you couldn't see them unless they were touching your shell.
So, as the idea goes, a theoretical 4-D creature could see us in our 3-D shell, but we couldn't see them unless they passed through our shell.
We are in the 4th dimension already. 3 Dimensions of space and 1 of time. Perhaps the article should have specified a 4th spacial dimension.
I like the idea that we're all living in a Black Hole. Perhaps the expansion of the Universe is the distant gravity of the black hole that we reside in pulling from all directions?
Our Universe creating a 2 dimensional Universe on a black hole is intriguing. Seems possible. The spaghettification effect of a black hole as you approach causes matter to be smeared across the entire surface effectively making everything that falls in 2 dimensional.
The universe didn't necessarily come from a single point. I think that is part of the misconception I warned about in my first post. The big bang theory only says that the universe was once infinitesimally small.
"There are problems with the Big Bang theory, though until now we haven't really had any better ideas, "
eeeerrrrrtttttt! (Sound of needle screeching on phonograph)
Hold the presses. After all this, you guys are finally admitting the Big Bang is just a placeholder for lack of imagination (or too much of it!)
Let's pause and consider that for a while...mmm....
@jabailo...more like-they think they have it mostly correct, but there is always more to learn about this area of study, cheers.
"The team says they're still tweaking their models" So, they're going to tweak it so that it fits their imagination?
"nobody's saying the Big Bang is false" Actually the Bible (regardless if you believe in it or not) says that Big Bang didn't happen.
"team realized that if the bulk universe contained its own four-dimensional (4D) stars" that's TOTALLY wrong, the universe contained its own 7D stars, I'm 'tweaking' my models as we speak.
How about this as a hypothesis: We are still in the 'Big Bang' explosion; the universe hasn't been created yet. We are in the 1 [billionth?, trillionth?] of a second after the 'explosion'. Since time is relative we think it has been 14 billion years, but the fact is that it has only been a fraction of a second.
it is quite simple, when any given object ceases motion within a given universe it goes bang. so for a black hole of some mass, it no longer moves relative to the rest of the universe and becomes unstable thus the "bang"
d49 -- if an object is moving away at any angle at the speed of light you would never be able to observe it. only those objects with perpendicular motion or less would be visible. This based on your motion being the same speed as the object being observed.
like any new theory, there will be many that say something like, "this will 'fizzle'". Many people are afraid of and are not capable of visualizing a new reality - all the while sitting in a small room on a tiny planet perusing data that has only been collected from instruments within the tiny orbit of this planet. They seem to think that all the 'accepted' theories of the 'universe' say everything about the universe...
still waiting for the comments to explode.
The problem here is perception. "but new findings from the European Space Agency found fluctuations in ancient microwaves that match the Big Bang theory but not this new black hole theory." Still.. these and all new findings and past measurements and data still suffer from one flaw; our perception. Given the same intelligence and reasoning capacity of a human being, what would and undersea creature incapable of ever coming close to the surface think of our universe? Or how about a protozoa?
Granted, we are sitting on a planet's surface at the edge of space with the aid of many instruments and computers to calculate this and that... still... for all we know we're at the bottom or the top of a system we may never understand because of our finite perspective and limited ability to understand. Even our senses and our sensory instruments are based on our finite understanding of how to sense things.
Let me try and find an analogy.... hmmm..... if we were all naturally blind, had no eyes whatsoever, and never knew there was such a thing as sight, would we even know there were stars in the sky? Maybe we could develop instruments that could 'see' them... radio sources above us... but what would we make of them? could we 'visualize' points of light? Could we even conceive what 'light' looks like? Sight would be an abstract as mindboggling as a fourth dimension is to most of us now. And even if the most genius of us could comprehend it... could even he/she actually be able to visualize all that we can naturally and easily see with our eyes?
So my theory is... that we are missing the relative senses necessary to detect what our universe actually is. We grope in the dark like underground mole rats trying to determine what lies beyond our understanding.
Yes I believe we will eventually find out what this universe actually is... but not before we discover many other forms of sensory perception.
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
What we are talking here about is the "ULTIMATE REALITY" of our origin i.e "The beginning" of "Everything" its just like a son trying to see how his father was born,its impossible trust me on that.But for a son it is possible to know how he himself was born..Its simple he can ask his own father i.e the 4th dimension.
And if i say that it has been done
already then probably you guys will laugh at me.
And i agreed what ggenua said about perceptions that human mind receive via its 5 sense organs. Scientifically its true that human brain is conscious of very FEW things that are actually happening around us.Ggenua is also right when he said that we don't have that "ORGAN" to perceive.But what if we can develop the particular "Organ" or the "SIXTH SENSE" i can say.Then it can be perceived in other words we can be conscious of the "FOURTH".
Many saints had already did that by meditations they developed the "ORGAN" (sixth sense)and unfolded their consciousness into the 4th dimension.
Jesus and many saints had done that.Jesus said that he had witnessed the reality but no one believed with him In the east those who practiced it was killed on account that they were practicing witchcraft and in the west it flourished but they also lost their ways because of many wars and castes were created at that time. But now science and spirituality are coming closer.
Sorry for my bad english.
I always enjoyed knowing prior to space and the single point compressed everything, there was the nothing.
Its topology.the entire black hole is a volume, but the surface can be thought of as a plane wrapped around the volume.
Think of it like a bear skin rug. It used to cover the bear's volume and could as you say be entered from any of the 3 dimensions the bear exists in. But as a rug it has only 2 dimensions (since we normally don't care about the thickness of a rug as much as the surface area it covers).
As to the whole big bang......The big unanswered question that even this new hypothesis doesn't/can't answer. Is why there is something rather than nothing.
My understanding of a 4th dimensional shape is that literally the inside is the outside. It can't be visualized, because its structure exceeds our capacity to perceive it.
Basically if you were to head out to the edge of our own big bang (assuming you had the ability, either physically or holographically) you would end up back in the middle.
To me it makes more sense that our big bang (or collapsed 4d shape) is only one of many. one tiny bubble in a vast sea of bubbles. which i like, because if our own reality is infinite, or near infinite, then there are an infinite number of other big bangs separated by god knows what.
My biggest problem with creationism or the big bang theory is that they aren't cyclical. Everything we have observed about the universe is cyclical, yet we superimpose our own mortality on the largest structures that exist? I would rather superimpose the immortality of the cosmos on myself. Hubris.
@bagpipes, that question already has been stabbed at a bit, and all we laymen need to do is wait for the physicists to, in relation to that particular question, finish their work.
one hypothesis was simply an unequal distribution of
matter/antimatter during/within an extremely small period of time after the instance of the big bang. Similar to what is said about virtual particle pairs spawning and canceling each other out at the Planck scale, except for the unequal distribution on te hcosmic level.
it might make sense that it happened that way because of one of the ways our universe is thought to have spawned.
From an unequal expansion of one of these virtual pairs.
i dont know why you make your last statement as if not knowing had any significance. This is science. not knowing is part of the job.
Ya, this is an old theory actually:
Oddly, since we do somewhat know what happens when a black-hole dissipates, perhaps 1.) our original universe still has this portal open but isn't feeding? What if it starts feeding again? Does a black-hole then collect enough matter, when its feeding, to cause enough pressure that another universe is spawned or... 2.) or does a black-hole NOT maintain a constant opening, from this universe to the original universe and instead spawns many universes from a single black-hole?
1.) In one scenario, a black hole is simply a hole into extra-dimensional space, with a universe attached to it, from its original stars implosion (collapse). Its just a spinning hole waiting to spew more and more matter into its already spawned universe. Every time it feeds its spawn gets more and more matter. The black-hole always stays connected to that one spawned universe though, until it dissipates.
2.) In the other scenraio, as soon as a star collapses, the black-hole spews this matter all at once (big bang), expands a universe (inflation), and then detaches from that universe, but doesn't dissipate, and spawns another universe the next time it feeds. It has no permanent connection to its original universe it first spawned though. It just spawns a new one each time.
The 2nd scenario works with a slight caveat. The caveat is that when a black-hole first opens another universe (upon its parent stars collapse) that the explosion has a unique frequency. The amount of matter, size of the hole, etc. create an amount of pressure for the original bang to take place. Once that happens a frequency is made, and as the expansion takes place, the frequency fills the membrane. The sound is so intense, and so energetic, that it bounces of the walls of the universe, many many times, creating a Higgs field with the criss-crossing sound/pressure waves. As the stripped down matter (gluon soup) annihilates, expands and cools, its various energies start to interact with that resonant (Higgs) field and become matter. However, that matter is based on the original frequency (Higgs) that is unique to that universe. The sound that created another universe would be slightly different and therefore its matter doesn't interact with ours. However, this matter was still injected into our universe from our feeding back-hole. Since it doesn't vibe with our Higgs, it stays non interacting, but still has mass as gravity permeates all universes, thus ... dark energy.
More mind blowing... could another black-hole open up into our universe at any given time? Einsteins theory of white-holes may be as common as every single black-hole has one. Yen and yang, cause and effect, law of opposites, all still add up. Physics would be unique to an individual universe, to a large degree. Larger Star collapses would have higher energy explosions and perhaps different and more complex physics than our universe.
"Do not try and bend the spoon. That is impossible. Only try and realize the truth - there is no spoon."
Unless one day we become able to create a cosmos, I do not believe we will ever be able to answer what came prior to the nothing or where the source of energy came from prior to its arrival compress single moment state in the nothing.
And if one was able to create a cosmos to answer this question, I suspect that person would be considered GOD.
We are part of an ever growing tree of spawned universes (membranes) from black-holes. A tree of life. Who knows how many there are or what number of branches. There was obviously an original parent universe.
As for the perception of 4D. Imagine a human beings head... from the outside you can map that head in 3 dimensions. However, it has a 4th dimension (the mind). This 4th dimension can't be measured but is a construct with limitless borders that things are happening in. It has very little mass, this mind, but can't create visualizations, of any type and complexity, as if it were its own universe. You cannot see this 4th dimension of this human head but you all have experienced it and know it exists. Every human carries around an extra dimension. A compiler, or modeling construct, if you will. It is as real as anything else but cannot be measured.
The internet is aslo dimension, for instance. A universe created inside another universe. :)
"Do not try and bend the spoon. That is impossible. Only try and realize the truth - there is no spoon."
@D49 Thats exactly what saints has told to this world. They said that human mind is bound to wander outside in the 3 dimensional world,driven by the 5 sense organs it never comes to itself. But by meditations under accomplished teacher it is possible to make it come home i.e 4th dimension. Then it will start revealing its secrets itself.But this state of a mind is impossible to describe it can only be experienced,just like a dumb who had eaten a sweet cant tell how it tastes like. I had an e-book that combines both scientific and spiritual facts about the human mind,anyone who is interested can message me.
just another fancy theory by mr noone.
As if a 4D magical star is a better theory then a big bang.
Its equal to saying god made the universe.
Perhaps its like a refridgerator?
It all goes round anr round, expands and then gets compressed to expand again.. over and over again!!! And we are coolign some mega dimensional aliens quantumdimensional beer.
Might I suggest that the quest for figuring out our beginnings is being over thought? The way I see it is this, every thing that is in existence today, whether it be man made or natural was created. With that simple notion I think the focus will shift to "who created", instead of "what created". Saying that this complex system of stars, planets and galaxies started from an explosion (in layman terms) is as Ludacris as me saying that Boeing strapped a bunch of TNT to a ton of scrap metal and BOOM!!! now we have the 787 Dreamliner. Not only would that be an insult to the creators but you my fellow readers would be pissed at the ignorance of such a comment.
Now I don't make any claims in knowing everything and I am still trying to wrap my head around this new theory, probably taking longer than most...lol. However given the precision that our world operates on to ensure our survival (and we have been destroying this planet for thousands of years and it's still here) and the complexity of the human brain, isn't it a bit farfetched that this level of complexity and precision came from something that's chaotic and destructive? If this was the case, wouldn't there be evidence that suggest that blowing up something will yield a product fully assembled and functional without any further assistance weather natural or manmade.
The beginning I would suggest comes from a designer/creator, and I know it doesn't answer all the questions we have about the beginning, which is why there is such a thing called faith. Now given the two sides to this debate, it does take a whole lot more faith and imagination to believe that our universe started from nothing vs. logical and less imaginative notion that it was designed and created.
And yet a 787 Dreamliner has an obvious purpose for which it was designed. Everything is there for a reason, placed there with logical, purposeful intent.
So, to what obvious intent was the universe made? What grand purpose does the chaotic distribution of matter and energy through out the cosmos serve? If you have an answer to that one, other than "one cannot know the mind of God", then you have used far more faith and imagination than a person that simply states, "we simply are".
@the_lad, only knowing how we began can we be certain that our existence doesn't suddenly end the same way, in an instant. We have to know our origins and how stable our existence is in order to be sure that we have an infinite timeline to evolve however we want to. Otherwise we will need to act accordingly, perhaps go to another more stable universe?
What if we discover that this universe we live in will fade, contract, or something else that will end life, and the universe, as we know it? That changes things.
Also, if there is a creator, which there might be, what would be his motive be for creating such a construct as the universe? Why would he create man? Is this his form of entertainment? What stops him from simply getting bored with his creation and starting over? We all question who, why, where and what. If you so blindly believe in this faith then you should not look twice before you cross a busy street either... blind faith should be enough to ensure your survival.
It is a natural part of self preservation, our strongest instinct, to know if the world we live in will sill be around in a given amount of time. To understand our beginnings and limits of our surrounding environment is perfectly normal. The "Creator", as you stated, gave us this instinct and gave it to every living mammal, reptile, fish, marsupial and insect on this planet. He gave us something else too..."intelligence". I'm sure this intelligence was for more use than just speaking, writing and making art. Otherwise, this perfect creator of the universe made a huge oversight when it came to humans. That doesn't sound right though does it?
We will continue to test the boundaries of physics and the universe until we know what makes it tick. If we discover that we are only one of many universes then will go to those universes too until we can see the beginning. If there are races of more advanced beings, before us, then they are doing the same... or perhaps they already know.
I sort of hope that this theory is real. I like knowing that we are one of many membrane universes in a possible infinite sea of them. That the multiverse is an amazingly complex place that can't be figured out in a mere few hundred years. A very comforting thought that wonders will continue on for a long time to come.