archive: Re: SETI RE: [ASTRO] BIG bang question

Re: SETI RE: [ASTRO] BIG bang question

jerry and judy ( )
Sat, 17 Oct 1998 11:44:36 -0600

>Hello, Jerry,
> I noticed you began with "The last collapsing universe bounced when it
>had contracted ALMOST to a singularity..." The implication, then, is that
>space-time did not really begin with the Big Bang but that we are presently
>in some kind of reincarnation of it and that the true timeline extends back
>through the Big Bang to a previous universe. Am I right here or way off
>Chris Boyce
>ET-Presence -

Thanks for your reply, Chris.

Yes, you're right, I'm a believer in eternal re-cycling (grin), not the
more human idea of something coming out of nothing, or worse (because it
doesn't predict anything new) 'something undefinable creating everything'
and then us kowtowing to this indefinable concept/construction. As an
aside, I've already stated in this group that I believe that we'll be
kowtowing to the 'landlords' of this part of the spiral arm soon enough.
Science has taught for centuries now that humans are unique, but not
'special'. Your country wasn't the center of the world, the Earth isn't
the center of Creation, the Sun isn't, the Galaxy isn't, our SuperCluster
isn't, on and on. Why should this Expansion be the center of time? Is it
'special'? How could it be? How would that work?
I don't *want* to accept that this is a one shot universe, but recent
observations are not helping. I'm hoping that they might be giving us a
clue as to how the universe accelerates early in its expansion and then
reaches an *almost* asymptotic limit more quickly, due to later (much
later) accelerating changes in the cosmological constant. As I wrote in
the post, the very early values of the cosmological constant are now
believed to have been 10000 times larger than it can be today.

We "closed universe guys" have some leads, other than just a more
satisfying and more "beautiful" conception. :) Black Holes might
evaporate, singularities might not be physically possible, dark matter
might more substantially fill the intergalactic voids, neutrinos might have
mass, short-lived primordial BHs left over from the Big Bang, whose rapid
'evaporation' we might detect as GRBs, might still pervade space safely
away from the galaxies.

Here's a fundamental clue, even though there's a lot of missing mass still
to be found. (grin)

from S. Hawking (paraphrased)
If the initial density of the universe, one second after the Big Bang, had
been greater by one part in a thousand billion, it would have recollapsed
after only ten years.
Conversely, if the speed of expansion one second after the Big Bang had
been larger by one part in a hundred thousand million million the Universe
would be so expanded by now that we would not even be able to observe any
other galaxy that was not gravitationally bound to our own Local Group.
(Very few galaxies probably would have formed!) With only the slightest
decrease in its initial density, the universe would have been virtually
empty by the time it was ten years old. With little chance for complexity
to arise.

It seems there's no friction, it's perfectly balanced and it doesn't
'leak'. What's to stop its cycling? Its protons decay, but the books
remain balanced down to last tittle!
What do you think?