I despise the big bounce because it's dogmatic in origin. "It makes sense that the universe just bounces instead of 'coming from nowhere'!"
Every time cosmologists looked, the universe got bigger and suggested growth. The big bounce at no point in history ever looked right. Moreover, the big bounce kicks the bucket down the road. It ultimately has the same metaphysical issues.
I find the reasoning poor as well. "I don't like inflation" != "The universe ends in contraction". Yes, it's proven difficult to explain CMB smoothness, but this doesn't mean the big bounce is a better candidate than other non-empirical ideas.
I'm confident truth will be far stranger than big bounce fiction.
On the other hand we have no direct evidence for Inflation and no idea what the Inflaton field is, what causes it or where it went. Yes I know the theory makes some predictions that have turned out to be correct, but if there are other theories that can also predict the same outcomes they deserve a hearing.
I don't think there's anything dogmatic about keeping an open mind. If you want to see dogma at work, see a reply to another comment of mine here where I'm ranted at about what is or isn't 'Scientific' and questions being 'non-scientific' simply for pointing out that the Big Bang isn't a complete model of the origin of the universe.
There are a lot of unanswered questions in this area and it's far from clear to me at least how they will be resolved, but I'm very excited to find out. I just don't think mud slinging about dogma and being non-scientific is going to help with that.
The metaphysical issues are unavoidable because whatever the theory we come up with or, I think, whatever the reality is, it can only fall within 2 possibilities:
- Infinity: There is no beginning and something always precedes the 'current' step (e.g. the Big Bang occurred out of something)
- Discontinuity: There is a beginning. Everything suddenly started out of nothing.
While both options are hard to grasp for the human mind, the second one, which is the standard Big Bang also sits very uncomfortably with Physics' concepts and is the more 'disturbing' of the two. I think that's why people have been looking for alternatives to the standard Big Bang theory.
Infinity, is still unfathomable but at least it is easier to fit Maths and Physics around.
Even adding God to the mix still leads to these 2 options, because if the Universe was created by 'God' it implies that the Big Bang is not the beginning and that something (God) pre-existed. The idea that we might be in a simulation is equivalent to a creator God, just more hi-tech.
It really seems to me that these alternatives, infinity or discontinuity, are inescapable.
Is it not equally dogmatic to presume that the universe was nothing and then suddenly something and that nothingness is the natural resting state of experience and that before something-ness there exists nothing-ness?
> It makes sense that the universe just bounces instead of 'coming from nowhere'
This is why people are getting tired of scientism. Instead of being unbiased, some so called scientists are putting dogmas ahead of their observations and pushing for an agenda under the guise of science.
Both theories are somewhat incomprehensible for normal human beings. The idea, that everythinw we know just came into existence at some point is as shocking as trying to think of something that has no beginning and no end. We humans are inherently bad in dealing with these terms.
I'm not the physicist (my mother was), but as I understand it the 'came into existence' is not part of the big bang model.
Big bang only makes sense to a particular energy/time/space limit. All the energy that came to be all the universe already existed. What happened 'before that' doesn't even make sense. I was told that 'creation' type language is a misunderstanding of the big bang.
The idea, that everythinw we know just came into existence at some point is as shocking as trying to think of something that has no beginning and no end.
It's only an issue if you think about space and time as separate things. I find it makes (a little) more sense when you understand that time is a function of spacetime. Therefore if you're happy with space not existing prior to the big bang (which people do seem to be OK with) then automatically time didn't exist either, and hence 'before the big bang' ceases to be a problem.
You're right of course but I find the cyclic version so much more intuitive.
The force from the big bang was imparted in an instant yet gravity is a constant force. IANAP but surely at some point the accumulative force of billions/trillions/... of years of gravity overcomes the force imparted by the big bang and the universe compresses into a singularity again?
I'd really appreciate someone explaining why this isn't obviously the case.
Actually I find an absolute beginning and an absolute ending more troublesome to think about. It is easier to accept that in reality while everything keeps changing and recycling, the sum total has always been.
A circle doesn’t have a beginning or an end, yet folks seem to be okay dealing with them.
Personally, I’m stumbling on understanding physical fields. This looks like another field is being added, which is nice in some sense, but why do we have the number of fields that we do and what conditions are needed to create/sustain physical fields?
Many comments here address an important issue: the human mind has a hard time making sense of both an eternally existing universe, as well as something-from-nothing. But most of the issues stem from presupposing physicalism. It's understood even by staunch physicalists that choosing this metaphysics is ultimately arbitrary[1].
There's another way to approach all this. Start by asking: what's the one thing I know for certain? It's hard to say any more than it certainly seems like something is happening. Investigate this sheer fact of "seeming." See what the seeming is like before you apply any metaphysics on top of it. What happens when you do this extremely precisely?
Suppose that the correct metaphysics is that you are ultimately the primordial ground of being, that (paradoxically) weaves itself into apparent realities. What we think of as physical reality is just one instance. It transcends parameters like time and causality, but can give rise to them of its own will. Being the primordial ground of being, nothing logically prevents you from knowing this ultimate truth directly and unequivocally (unlike if you were really just a human).
As it so happens, the preceding paragraph describes how you would (re)arrive at this knowing. Or at least, that's what's suggested by various mystical traditions. As far as I can tell, there's definitely something to it.
[1] "There is no way to distinguish between the scenarios by collecting new data. What we’re left with is our choice of prior credences. We’re allowed to pick priors however we want. [...] We have every right to give high credence to views of the world that are productive and fruitful." —Sean Carroll, The Big Picture (p.91)
I have never heard about Big Bounce before, honestly, but the illustration at the top of the article basically made sense in a heart beat and I'm impressed how simple yet how much of the idea it conveys, apparently, correctly. Kudos to the visual artist, usually these scientific illustrations used to explain a weird or novel idea are over the top.
Anyone else when they think about the origin of Universe for a long time, start to wonder how the hell do we even exist and get a feeling like a panic attack? I don't really know how to accurately describe the feeling. Its a very weird sensation. It only happens when I think about the origin of Universe. And its very very hard to arrive at that state. Requires a lot of concentration. I must have experienced it like less than 5 or 6 times in my life so far.
It is called existential anxiety, it shows that you are able to contemplate about your own insignificance in contrast to the grand scheme of things (universe, all of existence, etc.). We all have it on one level or another, I used to have it when looking into a dark cloudless night, realizing that all of the little dots I can see out there could technically be orbited by another planet that bears life, inhabited by millions or billions of other lifeforms that could be able to feel and think.
Usually it is nothing to worry about, except when you get obsessed by it and it starts to control aspects of your life because you build a worldview around it or try hard to avoid it or explain it away: then it is called an existential crisis. But what it really means is that the mind gets overwhelmed by the fact that the universe is orders of magnitudes more complex than what the self has ever encountered in our daily lifes. Our brains have evolved so that bipedal apes that migrated from forests into the steppes can survive and cooperate in groups. It was never meant to be confronted by questions of this dimension, but yet here we are.
You can make your peace with it, and embrace it. It can also be a source of endless curiosity, spirituality and creativity.
I think the reaction to cosmological origins rather depends on how much you are trying to (implicitly) stay within your existing beliefs.
If you approach with a healthy nihilistic attitude, it's just cool stuff but doesn't matter(because nothing matters and as a nilhilist that's OK). But if you're chained to upholding or championing something, the existence question may become an enemy, one that is so hard to dismiss that it drains you.
Yes, I've had this happen several times as well, and only when thinking about the origin of the universe (or the origin of God, which is essentially the same thing). It doesn't seem to be a feeling I can create consciously, i.e. thinking about it right now doesn't cause it to happen.
I always wondered whether other people experienced this too, now I know. Thanks!
I experience that too, and only when I ponder the universe and ultimate questions like “why is there something rather than nothing?” It is a strange feeling that comes fast, some feeling of absurdity of it all mixed with the pain that we humans will maybe never be able to answer such questions, and it feels like a strange panic attack, felt both in the body and brain.
I take solace in some way that I am not alone in this and that there are other groups of trillions of atoms somewhere else in spacetime pondering the same questions with the same intensity.
I love / hate the sensation when you try to conceive that it (it including whatever includes "it", ad infinitum) has either existed forever or there was a point before anything existed.
For sure, I have experienced similar feelings. Good to know it's not just me. It's kind of like a derealization caused by the thought of how absurd or odd it is that we exist at all.
>Anyone else had the feeling where you think about the origin of Universe for a long time, it doesn't make any sense and you almost get a panic attack?
For whatever reason, it makes more more anxious than it should. The concepts involved are so far removed from my brain's understanding of reality that it makes me uncomfortable.
I think of it as having an "existential crisis". Its not just limited to thinking about the universe for me, but things like eventual death and all those "impossible to understand" topics.
The universe always having always existed makes slightly more sense to me than it just popping out of nowhere. Sure, from the Big Bang onwards the inflation theory seemed to make sense but it didn’t explain how everything could magically erupt out of nothing or what caused said eruption when nothing existed prior to it. For all the crap that religions get for believing in nonsense, I always felt the Big Bang was a scientific parallel.
Sir Roger Penrose and Dr William Lane Craig had an interesting discussion[0] that included him talking about the Big Bounce (around the 50-minute mark).
There's some interesting theories about what was happening before the big bang in the Joe Rogan interview with Brian Greene https://youtu.be/FHAA_1Guxlo
Inflationary theory. Someone more educated on the topic can pine in, but my lay understanding is that the output of some form of primeval radioactive decay (Big Bang) caused a phenomenal rate of spacial expansion, which caused space to expand faster than the rate of gravitational collapse in those first moments.
The universe is and always was infinite even at the big bang. At the big bang although the universe was incredibly dense it was so uniform there was no net direction of gravity to cause clumping. That and inflation rapidly expanding away any quantum imperfections beyond causal contact.
> Over billions of years a contracting scale factor brings everything a bit closer, but not all the way down to a point. The dramatic change comes from the Hubble radius, which rushes in and eventually becomes microscopic
All the matter of universe at a microscopic radius? That doesn't avoid the problem.
TL:DR; despite the title, mostly the theory challenges inflation (which itself was originally partly an attempt to answer predictive flaws with earlier cyclic theories) - the big bang itself is countered in so far as a "single point" state is not required.
With this continuous (eternal?) contraction and expansion, I'm reminded eerily of a heart beating, or something breathing...
The bing bang is way too accepted in the mainststream: in reality there is no concrete proof for it.
Therefore we can either:
a) Fit the models to fit the data.
b) Invent more physical phenomena to make it fit the data (quasi particles in physics).
There is nothing wrong in doing that, but there is severe arrogance of saying that "the bing bang happened" where in reality we just have a hypothesis.
And even "the most widely accepted by CONSENSUS" hyptothesis doesn't make mean is actually TRUE.
It's perfectly fine to make new theories, but at the end of the day we simply don't know enough: and yet the mainstream/every kid believes in the the bing bang to the extend as religous people believe in God.
There was very much a prediction of the Big Bang, before it was strongly supported by experimental evidence. This is what Penzias and Wilson got the Nobel prize for. Their accidental detection of the Cosmic Microwave Background matched a prediction by Gamow, and others previously, and it was also used as evidence to rule out solid state theory. Does that mean it's the whole story? Of course not necessarily, and the Big Bounce isn't necessarily incompatible with these observations. However, I don't think the idea that the universe rapidly expanded at some point in the past is under any doubt.
So this wasn't a model fitting the data. In fact it was an accidental observation which agreed with a model that had been suggested much earlier. The fact Penzias and Wilson weren't even looking for it makes it even more unbiased. Wilson, I believe, was also a solid state person (as were many prominent physicists in the 20s and 30s).
It was my understanding that physicists have never claimed that the big bang happened. That the big bang itself isn’t really part of the theory at all and that its simply a singularity point, but that some moments before that point, ohysics as we know it breaks down, so we don’t know what happened before and therefore do ‘t know if there was a bang or not, just that after that time, things happened that we can measure. Put another way, the big bang theory doesn’t include the big bang itself (the something from nothing part) but is about the inflation and expansion of the universe.
Here are some PBS Space Time videos on the subject:
“In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded”, now, a lot of non-scientists like to repeat this statement, but no credible scientist has ever said this, nor believes it. So its unfortunate that this statement is used to deride the big bang theory. The big bang describes a series of events that happened to the universe following its existence in an extremely hot, dense state. We have a ton of evidence that the universe was once in such a state. Perhaps our understanding of this state will eventually lead to a theory of the origin of the universe, but the big bang theory as it stands does not claim to explain such an origin. — Matt O’Dowd, PBS Space Time
The "theory" of evolution is the same thing. We have no "proof" of it. But of course we do. Evidence is all around us, being evaluated in a multitude of ways by a multitude of people using different sources of data making similar conclusions supported by experiments and evidence. This is basically how we define "fact".
Of course somebody may stumble onto something that blows the whole equation up, but barring that, we have sufficient confidence to say it's fact. Granted the big bang theory is harder to observe, study, and experiment. Doesn't change how it's viewed by science.
(TFA opens with this. It suggests the possibility of something that may blow up the equation. Great. Similarly, if somebody can find something that disproves evolution that would be pretty ground-breaking, but the more established a fact, the higher the burden of proof.)
[+] [-] Zamicol|5 years ago|reply
Every time cosmologists looked, the universe got bigger and suggested growth. The big bounce at no point in history ever looked right. Moreover, the big bounce kicks the bucket down the road. It ultimately has the same metaphysical issues.
I find the reasoning poor as well. "I don't like inflation" != "The universe ends in contraction". Yes, it's proven difficult to explain CMB smoothness, but this doesn't mean the big bounce is a better candidate than other non-empirical ideas.
I'm confident truth will be far stranger than big bounce fiction.
[+] [-] simonh|5 years ago|reply
I don't think there's anything dogmatic about keeping an open mind. If you want to see dogma at work, see a reply to another comment of mine here where I'm ranted at about what is or isn't 'Scientific' and questions being 'non-scientific' simply for pointing out that the Big Bang isn't a complete model of the origin of the universe.
There are a lot of unanswered questions in this area and it's far from clear to me at least how they will be resolved, but I'm very excited to find out. I just don't think mud slinging about dogma and being non-scientific is going to help with that.
[+] [-] mytailorisrich|5 years ago|reply
- Infinity: There is no beginning and something always precedes the 'current' step (e.g. the Big Bang occurred out of something)
- Discontinuity: There is a beginning. Everything suddenly started out of nothing.
While both options are hard to grasp for the human mind, the second one, which is the standard Big Bang also sits very uncomfortably with Physics' concepts and is the more 'disturbing' of the two. I think that's why people have been looking for alternatives to the standard Big Bang theory.
Infinity, is still unfathomable but at least it is easier to fit Maths and Physics around.
Even adding God to the mix still leads to these 2 options, because if the Universe was created by 'God' it implies that the Big Bang is not the beginning and that something (God) pre-existed. The idea that we might be in a simulation is equivalent to a creator God, just more hi-tech.
It really seems to me that these alternatives, infinity or discontinuity, are inescapable.
[+] [-] dcow|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sjs382|5 years ago|reply
I mean... with the scale of the timelines being discussed, that makes sense.
They aren't suggesting that the expansion and contraction happens within thousands of years but billions of years.
[+] [-] shireboy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apta|5 years ago|reply
This is why people are getting tired of scientism. Instead of being unbiased, some so called scientists are putting dogmas ahead of their observations and pushing for an agenda under the guise of science.
[+] [-] runxel|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sago|5 years ago|reply
Big bang only makes sense to a particular energy/time/space limit. All the energy that came to be all the universe already existed. What happened 'before that' doesn't even make sense. I was told that 'creation' type language is a misunderstanding of the big bang.
Is that not still the way it works?
[+] [-] onion2k|5 years ago|reply
It's only an issue if you think about space and time as separate things. I find it makes (a little) more sense when you understand that time is a function of spacetime. Therefore if you're happy with space not existing prior to the big bang (which people do seem to be OK with) then automatically time didn't exist either, and hence 'before the big bang' ceases to be a problem.
[+] [-] Johnjonjoan|5 years ago|reply
The force from the big bang was imparted in an instant yet gravity is a constant force. IANAP but surely at some point the accumulative force of billions/trillions/... of years of gravity overcomes the force imparted by the big bang and the universe compresses into a singularity again?
I'd really appreciate someone explaining why this isn't obviously the case.
[+] [-] Santosh83|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] state_less|5 years ago|reply
Personally, I’m stumbling on understanding physical fields. This looks like another field is being added, which is nice in some sense, but why do we have the number of fields that we do and what conditions are needed to create/sustain physical fields?
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Allower|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] monktastic1|5 years ago|reply
There's another way to approach all this. Start by asking: what's the one thing I know for certain? It's hard to say any more than it certainly seems like something is happening. Investigate this sheer fact of "seeming." See what the seeming is like before you apply any metaphysics on top of it. What happens when you do this extremely precisely?
Suppose that the correct metaphysics is that you are ultimately the primordial ground of being, that (paradoxically) weaves itself into apparent realities. What we think of as physical reality is just one instance. It transcends parameters like time and causality, but can give rise to them of its own will. Being the primordial ground of being, nothing logically prevents you from knowing this ultimate truth directly and unequivocally (unlike if you were really just a human).
As it so happens, the preceding paragraph describes how you would (re)arrive at this knowing. Or at least, that's what's suggested by various mystical traditions. As far as I can tell, there's definitely something to it.
[1] "There is no way to distinguish between the scenarios by collecting new data. What we’re left with is our choice of prior credences. We’re allowed to pick priors however we want. [...] We have every right to give high credence to views of the world that are productive and fruitful." —Sean Carroll, The Big Picture (p.91)
[+] [-] caiobegotti|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blocked_again|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maze-le|5 years ago|reply
Usually it is nothing to worry about, except when you get obsessed by it and it starts to control aspects of your life because you build a worldview around it or try hard to avoid it or explain it away: then it is called an existential crisis. But what it really means is that the mind gets overwhelmed by the fact that the universe is orders of magnitudes more complex than what the self has ever encountered in our daily lifes. Our brains have evolved so that bipedal apes that migrated from forests into the steppes can survive and cooperate in groups. It was never meant to be confronted by questions of this dimension, but yet here we are.
You can make your peace with it, and embrace it. It can also be a source of endless curiosity, spirituality and creativity.
[+] [-] megameter|5 years ago|reply
If you approach with a healthy nihilistic attitude, it's just cool stuff but doesn't matter(because nothing matters and as a nilhilist that's OK). But if you're chained to upholding or championing something, the existence question may become an enemy, one that is so hard to dismiss that it drains you.
[+] [-] jeffreyrogers|5 years ago|reply
I always wondered whether other people experienced this too, now I know. Thanks!
[+] [-] ssijak|5 years ago|reply
I take solace in some way that I am not alone in this and that there are other groups of trillions of atoms somewhere else in spacetime pondering the same questions with the same intensity.
[+] [-] jacobedawson|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sevrene|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fatnoah|5 years ago|reply
For whatever reason, it makes more more anxious than it should. The concepts involved are so far removed from my brain's understanding of reality that it makes me uncomfortable.
[+] [-] Razengan|5 years ago|reply
Like you're about to touch something that could cause everything to blink out of existence.
It actually causes physical discomfort and an increased heartrate and rapid breathing, like you need to turn back, NOW.
[+] [-] JamesSwift|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] disambiguation|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oxymoran|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JadoJodo|5 years ago|reply
[0] https://youtu.be/9wLtCqm72-Y
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] catmistake|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Johnjonjoan|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] breakbread|5 years ago|reply
Anyone here able to weigh in on that?
[+] [-] cloudking|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Santosh83|5 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology
[+] [-] Razengan|5 years ago|reply
Why can't it be Everything?
i.e., instead of imagining the Universe as a white dot on a black canvas, how about thinking of it as a black dot on a white background?
[+] [-] sliken|5 years ago|reply
The big bounce avoids this particular problem.
[+] [-] JesseMeyer|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meroes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LockAndLol|5 years ago|reply
> Over billions of years a contracting scale factor brings everything a bit closer, but not all the way down to a point. The dramatic change comes from the Hubble radius, which rushes in and eventually becomes microscopic
All the matter of universe at a microscopic radius? That doesn't avoid the problem.
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mellosouls|5 years ago|reply
With this continuous (eternal?) contraction and expansion, I'm reminded eerily of a heart beating, or something breathing...
[+] [-] ralfd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OneGuy123|5 years ago|reply
Therefore we can either: a) Fit the models to fit the data. b) Invent more physical phenomena to make it fit the data (quasi particles in physics).
There is nothing wrong in doing that, but there is severe arrogance of saying that "the bing bang happened" where in reality we just have a hypothesis.
And even "the most widely accepted by CONSENSUS" hyptothesis doesn't make mean is actually TRUE.
It's perfectly fine to make new theories, but at the end of the day we simply don't know enough: and yet the mainstream/every kid believes in the the bing bang to the extend as religous people believe in God.
[+] [-] joshvm|5 years ago|reply
So this wasn't a model fitting the data. In fact it was an accidental observation which agreed with a model that had been suggested much earlier. The fact Penzias and Wilson weren't even looking for it makes it even more unbiased. Wilson, I believe, was also a solid state person (as were many prominent physicists in the 20s and 30s).
[+] [-] dkersten|5 years ago|reply
Here are some PBS Space Time videos on the subject:
Why the big bang definitely happened: https://youtu.be/aPStj2ZuXug
Did time start at the big bang: https://youtu.be/K8gV05nS7mc
Whats wrong with the big bang theory: https://youtu.be/JDmKLXVFJzk
“In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded”, now, a lot of non-scientists like to repeat this statement, but no credible scientist has ever said this, nor believes it. So its unfortunate that this statement is used to deride the big bang theory. The big bang describes a series of events that happened to the universe following its existence in an extremely hot, dense state. We have a ton of evidence that the universe was once in such a state. Perhaps our understanding of this state will eventually lead to a theory of the origin of the universe, but the big bang theory as it stands does not claim to explain such an origin. — Matt O’Dowd, PBS Space Time
[+] [-] michaelsbradley|5 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
He "initially call[ed] it the 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'."
[+] [-] ryanianian|5 years ago|reply
The "theory" of evolution is the same thing. We have no "proof" of it. But of course we do. Evidence is all around us, being evaluated in a multitude of ways by a multitude of people using different sources of data making similar conclusions supported by experiments and evidence. This is basically how we define "fact".
Of course somebody may stumble onto something that blows the whole equation up, but barring that, we have sufficient confidence to say it's fact. Granted the big bang theory is harder to observe, study, and experiment. Doesn't change how it's viewed by science.
(TFA opens with this. It suggests the possibility of something that may blow up the equation. Great. Similarly, if somebody can find something that disproves evolution that would be pretty ground-breaking, but the more established a fact, the higher the burden of proof.)