The Big Bang’s Identity Crisis – The Nature of Reality

More bang for the buck? Credit: jeff_golden/Flickr, adapted under a Creative Commons license.

Think of the Big Bang, and you probably imagine a moment in time when matter, energy and space itself all burst into existence at once. Yet many astrophysicists now believe that the “Big Bang” was actually two distinct events: first the inaugural instant of space and time, and second the generation of most of the “stuff” that populates that space. So, which really deserves to be called the Big Bang?

via The Big Bang’s Identity Crisis – The Nature of Reality.

This article calls attention to a dispute I’ve noticed lately.  Some physicists insist that cosmic inflation happened before the Big Bang, others that the Big Bang was the moment of everything began.  Of course, if you accept the theory of eternal inflation, then there was no beginning, and the period of inflation ending is the point of the Big Bang.

Given how imprecise the term “Big Bang” actually is, how inappropriate of a term it is for describing what it applies to anyway, the debate strikes me a somewhat meaningless.  (No, as the article describes, I don’t have a catchier name than “Big Bang”.  That still doesn’t make it accurate.)

Personally, I’ve always thought of the Big Bang starting from the earliest moments of our universe that we can know anything about, and lasting until the cosmic microwave background was generated (after all, the CMB was often called the “afterglow” of the big bang), but I realize that isn’t how most cosmologists think about it.  Of course, an argument could be made that we’re still living within the Big Bang, since everything is still expanding and cooling, although dark energy complicates that assertion.

The debate does serve one purpose however.  It illuminates the stages of the early universe, which given how difficult these concepts are to describe, is actually a good thing.

15 thoughts on “The Big Bang’s Identity Crisis – The Nature of Reality

      1. Some question on the expansion of universe now. Anyway, metaphysics is the origin of knowledge. Facts change, but the truth is eternal.


        1. Hmmm, well, from a scientific perspective, the expansion of the universe is attested by extensive observations. Nothing in science is ever absolutely settled, but any alternative explanation for those observations has to explain them at least as well as an expanding universe.

          On metaphysics and truth, you might be right, but there’s no way to prove the truth of one metaphysical viewpoint over another.


          1. Because once proven, it’s not metaphysical anymore?

            Remember that conformal cyclic cosmology I posted a while back? I still see all things cosmological through that lens. It’s doing great things for my skepticism.


          2. I think if you can have evidence for or against it, most people would categorize it as science.

            I don’t recall the post explicitly, but I endorse skepticism 🙂


          3. “because once proven” i’m not so sure about fact the human mind actually is able to prove anything what would in the future (in most cases) turned out to be nothing more than an illusion of this mind. even with a full set of scientific evidence!


  1. In my view, the Big Bang is the hypothesis that the universe expanded from a state of extreme density. It doesn’t have to be an actual event at a definite point of time, any more than the theory of evolution means that we evolved from apes at a definite moment.


  2. You have discussed three issues: Big Bang/inflation, Mathematical Universe and BICEP2 results. In fact, the ‘details’ of the Big Bang ‘moment’ must be isomorphic (via similarity-transformation) to the ‘current structure’ of this universe. And, this ‘structure’ issue can be wholly described mathematically, in fact, with only two numbers (64, 48).

    Every structure can always outlined with a few demarcation markers (or landmarks). In the case of this universe, those landmarks are a set of numbers (or values). That is, the ‘structure’ must produce those numbers. Yet, for every given number (as a target), one can ‘always’ reversely engineer a ‘bow and arrow’ to hit that target. Thus, it is very easy to tell whether a formula is a ‘numerology’ or not with two criteria.

    Criterion one: does the formula has a ‘preset’ framework which is not ‘directly’ connected to the target(s)?

    Criterion two: a bow/arrow set which hits one target in a ‘field’ must be able to hit the other targets in that same field (field as discipline, such as, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.).

    With these two criteria clearly defined, we can now review some archery acrobatics and to see whether they are numerologies or not.

    Target one: Planck data (dark energy = 69.2; dark matter = 25.8; and visible matter = 4.82).

    Bow/arrow set one: the Pimple model (or house-address name model) —
    1. There are 48 mass-particles, and each of these 48 has its own ‘measured’ mass-value which is different from all other mass-particles.
    2. For every mass-particle, its measured mass is only a ‘name-tag (or a Pimple)’ for its house which also encompasses all 47 other mass-particles. That is, for every visible particle, it is only a ‘part’ of the house which houses the entire 48 particles.

    With this bow/arrow, only 7 of the 48 mass-particles [the first generation matter (not anti-matter)] gives out lights (excluding e-neutrino). Thus, the dark mass/visible mass ratio = [41 (100 – w)% / 7] . The *w* is the percentage of the dark matter which does give out lights. According to the AMS02 data, it is between 8 to 10%. By choosing w = 9, the d/v ratio = 5.33 (while the Planck data shows d/v ratio = 25.8/4.82 = 5.3526). Details, (see ).

    This bow/arrow is ‘preset’, no reverse-engineering of any kind in it. One free-parameter of ‘w’ is a ‘physics’ parameter, not an ad hoc numerology. That is, the ‘w’ should work in some other bow/arrow set in addition to this target only.

    For dark energy, the bow/arrow is ‘preset’ as an iceberg model — that is, the Time, Space and Mass (dark + visible) form an iceberg system, while the mass is the iceberg. And, they three take the *equal* share.
    So, the dark mass = [(33.3 – 4.82) x (100 -w)%] = 25.91 (while the Planck data is 25.8), with d/v ratio = 5.37. The w = 9% here is the melting ratio from the dark matter. Thus, the dark energy = 66.66 + [(33.3 – 4.82) x w%] = 66.66 + 2.56 = 69.22 (while the Planck data is 69.2).

    There are three points on this.
    d. The dark-mass target was hit twice on the bull’s-eye by two different sets of bow/arrow.
    e. The free-parameter ‘w’ works for both sets of bow/arrow.
    f. The ‘w’ is able to encompass the small (in 10%) adjustment in Planck data.

    Target two: (1/Alpha) = 137.0359 …
    Bow/arrow: the structure ‘number’ model — the structure of this universe is 100% decided with two numbers (64, 48),
    Beta = 1/alpha = 64 ( 1 + first order mixing + sum of the higher order mixing)
    = 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …)
    = 137.0359 …
    A(2) is the Weinberg angle, A(2) = 28.743 degree
    The sum of the higher order mixing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + …+(1/n)(1/64)^n +…]
    = .00065737 + …

    Target three: Weinberg angle (from 28 to 30 degrees)
    Bow/arrow: the same as for the Alpha calculation. See .

    Target four: Cabibbo angle (about 13 degree)
    Bow/arrow: the same as for the Weinberg angle.

    Target five: the r-ratio of B-mode in the CMS. The value is currently unknown but claimed by BICEP2 as r = 0.2
    Bow/arrow: the same set as for Cabibbo/Weinberg angles and Alpha, the structure ‘number’ model — the structure of this universe is 100% decided with two numbers (64, 48). The 48 forms the mass-field, encompassing 48 mass-particles. The 16 forms the energy-field (the dark energy). Thus, the polarized (dark energy)/scalar (total energy, E-mode + B-mode) ratio = (64 – 48)/64 = 0.25

    In fact, those five targets are hit by the same bow/arrow. After knowing the ‘current’ structure of this universe, we will know the details of the Big Bang moment. Note: this ‘structure’ description is completely different from the Mathematics Universe Hypothesis.


Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.