Oddbean

KOSMOGENESIS - Translated from Spanish by Argos - I wonder... The question is so dumb that it doesn't even deserve the effort to answer it. But in that case, just like a scientist, it serves to put himself in the place of scientific illiterates at the time of scientific disclosure. It is said that in the #BIGBANG all the matter of the universe was concentrated at one point and to say it somehow. STALL! But... Why? When the cosmological models arise, three possibilities are usually pointed out: open, closed and stationary. And a variant of the closure in the form of bounce or ping-pong effect, BIG-CRUNCH/BIG-BANG, BIG-CRUNCH/BIG-BANG, etc... But no other obvious possibility is pointed out. If the BIG-CRUNCH/BIG-BANG model is valid, something in the process has to provoke the "phase transition", two #strings or two #branes are touched, the curvature of the space tries to overcome the 360 degrees, the matter of a space-time passes to another space-time or simply a random event; it would be very interesting to know what happens within the singularity but the only important thing is that it occurs. I can't imagine all the atoms of the universe, in the style of the Woody Allen sperm, passing "list" into the singularity, for when all are allowed, or that the laws of physics allow them to re-expand! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM3fglmaRrA :) So it might well be that to produce a "big-bang", the whole matter of the universe was not missing. From the universe, no. From the cosmos [Mc]. If we do Mu less than Mc, being Mu, basically a cosmological constant, defined by the amount of matter that by acretion must be assembled in a BIG-CRUNCH before it is transferred to a BIG-BANG, and Mc the amount of matter in the #COSMOS, every emerging universe would do it in a pre-existing cosmos, which would give it... 1.- Seminal space-temporal variations for the subsequent creation of planets, stars and galaxies (in the form of matter on the road of #BIGCRUNCH, but that does not reach it before the BIG-BANG occurs, without having to resort to quantum variations, the great badabum that in the form of pressure waves that generate variations, etc.). 2.- Balance MATTER-ANTIMATTER favourable to matter, since #antimatter would still have the matter of the pre-existing cosmos with which to annihilate. Of course, whenever the by-products of an MATTER-ANTIMATTER reaction, in the form of a heater?, light?, radiation?, etc. (I really have no idea what they are! :), they were still able to produce the phase transition in a BIG-CRUNCH/BIG-BANG process, as if not, in each BIG-BANG, we would lose 1/2 of Mu, for what would be necessary a generator of external matter. But I guess if MATTER = ENERGY.... :)). 3.- By coexisting the matter of the emerging universe with matter older than the same, if not all, part of the #dark_matter could be explained as matter in the state of thermal death, black holes (minis, in the process of evaporation, etc.), black stars, wandering planets ..., as we would have enough time for all objects to be possible. And it would also explain why in such early universe times we see things like carbon, when supposedly not enough time would have elapsed to form. 4.- Overcoming the initial impulse for its expansion granted by the BIG-BANG from which it was born, would be the gravitational attraction of the cosmos that surrounds the universe of our interest, which through ORDINARY GRAVITY would accelerate the expansion of it. Explaining the #dark_energy. 5.- Even though Mu is a large ASTRONOMICLY number, I don't see why he has to produce infinites, something that bothered Einstein so much. We can make Mu 99% of Mc, but we can also think big and make it Mc 0.1 or 0,000001, or directly do Mc Infinite and Mu finite. Thus, the matter of a given universe would become part of a number n, of future dual events, BIG-CRUNCH/BIG-BANG, at different times in time and in different places in space, so far away from each other in time and space that by the time they came to join the matter from other universes to form these BIG-CRUNCHs/BIG-BANGs would make it thermal in the state. Perhaps the light of a universe never reached another "living" universe, and if it did its matter. I can stop radiating, but I can keep bagging through space. A few years ago I saw a documentary from a center of cosmological studies that I think I remember this in Canada, which studies the possibility of a cosmos with multiple universes, as #multiverse, without sharing physical laws. But why? If all universes were born in the same cosmos, without a border, they would share physical laws. Being born in a cosmos would force them to comply with physical laws, to have certain constants. It is difficult to imagine an infinite cosmos, but it is also to imagine a finite, as well as anyone who has read "The Neverending Story" :) If in the scientific disclosure books a lot is used to the Socratic method to get answers, I think it is Carl Sagan who in any of his books, or at least so I remember it (more or less), the one that reminiscent of the question that makes him an old woman of "why it is not possible that the earth is a flat stone lasc on the shell of a giant turtle...? (I see myself asking a similar, Sorry..., Sorry..., Sor..), because we would have to ask ourselves that there is under the turtle, etc..."; Why not ask that Mu<Mc even when it is to rule out the idea? The earth was the center..., the Sun was the center..., The Milky Way was the center..., our universe... is the CENTRE...? How would we see a BIG-BANG at 175,000, 632,000, 1,041,523, 75,596,347 million light years?, Would we see it?