Excerpts from a recent science article (see enclosed link):
"Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts that the universe originated from an infinitely dense single point and then exploded outward in the “big bang.” But this earliest state—known as a singularity—has caused all kind of problems for physicists since it was postulated. Now scientists have created a new model of the universe that incorporates principles from quantum mechanics and doesn’t necessitate the existence of a singularity. This doesn’t mean there wasn’t a big bang—the data that support the theory are still as robust as ever; the new model has simply found a way around the singularity issue. EarthSky reports that, it instead theorizes that the universe has always existed as a kind of “quantum potential” that eventually collapsed into the hot explosion of the big bang. "
Your views are welcome! - Sundar
http://news.sciencemag.org/sifter/2015/02/what-if-the-universe-doesn-t-have-a-beginning?rss=1
Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts that the universe originated from an infinitely dense single point and then exploded outward in the “big bang
Are you sure about that? I thought other people proposed Big Bang for the first time based on ('red' versus 'blue') shifts in colours of spectra produced by stars
Dear Marcel,
In other words: the question is not overambitious but participants are not sufficiently trained and imaginative. At least, I am not.
A related research article on the query:
"Did the Universe Have a Beginning?" by Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research
Abstract : The big bang theory postulates that the entire universe originated in a cosmic explosion about 15 billion years ago. Such an idea had no serious constituency until Edwin Hubble discovered the redshift of galaxy light in the 1920s, which seemed to imply an expanding universe. However, our ability to test cosmological theories has vastly improved with modern telescopes covering all wavelengths, some of them in orbit. Despite the widespread acceptance of the big bang theory as a working model for interpreting new findings, not a single important prediction of the theory has yet been confirmed, and substantial evidence has accumulated against it. Here, we examine the evidence for the most fundamental postulate of the big bang, the expansion of the universe. We conclude that the evidence does not support the theory; and that it is time to stop patching up the theory to keep it viable, and to consider fundamentally new working models for the origin and nature of the universe in better agreement with the observations.
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp
As stated, the singularity is an infinite regress. We regress from big bang to a potential for a big bang. This potential is a new singular. All this circularity would seem to accomplish nothing.
t's a good question and this debate was made in other posts of RG. For my part the Big Bang theory and model associated of the universe are wrong, although I am not a specialist area. The cosmic redshift can have different causes to the isotropic expansion and there are dozens of alternative models. It happens the same with the background microwave radiation, moreover, recently an article that states that can be produced by the magnetic field of the galaxy was published. It is quite likely that the space is not expanding and that nature does not have limits in time and space
Some scientists claim that the universe did not have a beginning. Some theologians contend that the universe did not need a beginning.
http://www.closertotruth.com/episodes/did-our-universe-have-beginning
Dear Prof. Krishnan - My understanding is that no consensus has been reached yet by physicists on this query. From the replies here, it is apparent that there are diverse views also.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics