@arish
Arish Ali
@arish · 3:45

Big Bang or Big Bounce - new research on the origin of the universe

article image placeholderBig Bounce Simulations Challenge the Big Bang
This is a really wonderful article about what happened before the Big Bang. Originally, when the Big Bang theory had come out long time back in the 60s and all, there had also been per seating universe theory about it. Kind of universe expands and contracts. But that was a very different way of looking at it. Since then, Big Bank has theories become obviously a lot more mature

https://www.quantamagazine.org/big-bounce-simulations-challenge-the-big-bang-20200804/

6
@rudra
Rudra Narsiman
@rudra · 2:11
If we were to see objects blue shift rather than red shift, then would that explain or sort of prove this theory of a bounce universe? It is very interesting. I sort of rely on just going by the Big bang theory because like I said, a lot of the physics that we have today, especially on gravity and at least the origin of the universe. I think the Big bang explains it really well, but I just had that one question
@arish
Arish Ali
@arish · 1:15

We will expand for a trillion years before contraction happens @rudy

And with this contraction kind of maths, they are showing that it can still result in kind of that uniform and flat universe that we actually observe. Bye
@Swell
Swell Team
@Swell · 0:15

Welcome to Swell!

@amitm
Amit Munje
@amitm · 1:19

Poincaré's recurrence theorem

But if you wait for enough number of cycles, you would also see a reputation of pretty much everything around you down to the microscopic levels like Gazillion years from now, we are bound to have this exact cost conversation again. Hair on swell with probably a strand of hair on my head angled a bit differently from how it is now
6
@Hedy_Lamarr
Art Science Wonder
@Hedy_Lamarr · 0:05

Ba-ba-BAasS

I say Big bounce because we could always use more base
2
@arish
Arish Ali
@arish · 2:03

One two three... infinity

Hi, Amit. Yes, that's fascinating, actually. And there's also the converse, if you will, of the multiverse or parallel universes, where right now there are an infinite multitude of of parallel universes. And we are having the same conversation with a slight variation with that hair being off somewhere else as well. Those ideas are fascinating. I love thinking about them
2
@amitm
Amit Munje
@amitm · 2:31

Theorem > theory or theory > theorem?

I don't remember the details of the proof or the actions involved, but I think one of the assumptions that time doesn't end, and maybe a couple of other basic assumptions are there. So if you already believe in these laws, then Poncarns follows logically. In fact, the theorem is so general that it holds not just in classical physics, but also in quantum
2
@arish
Arish Ali
@arish · 2:22

@amitm - you should start a swell on Maths vs Physics :)

So while I love the theorem in itself and I can see where all it applies, I am not sure I'm not convinced that it does apply to the universe and its end points, because both the variables of the theorem door that based on which is time and both volume of space are kind of not defined at the end point, if you will. I hope that makes sense. I would love to learn more again
2
@amitm
Amit Munje
@amitm · 0:42

Yup, I'm still off the original topic :p

Yes, Arish. Fair enough. We can't compare the likelihoods of the Recurrent Serum and the Universe theory. I guess the point I was trying to make was that some of the observed realities of the Universe theory and the theory itself are all astonishing in their own rights. Whereas in the case of the Recurrence theorem, it's amazing how just a couple of boring and seemingly benign actions lead to such a striking result. Even if we concede that the likelihoods of all the actions involved are very low
4
Swell user mugshot
0:000:00