The Cosmic Web Is Evidence AGAINST The Big Bang!

 


It is almost self evident that explosions of all kinds fling matter outwards in all directions.  They do not send matter snaking along filaments forming large web structures. Even though the Big-Bang was not an explosion as such, it's movement was charted in such terms Similarly, Gravity based movement and kinetic forces do not result in webs and filaments. Gravity is known to form large spheres and interactive movement between bodies is described in terms of orbital relationships based on mutual attraction between massive bodies. 


How then did the Lambda CDM Model claim predictive success when on the largest scales the cosmos was resolved as a gigantic web-like structure?


This structure is seen arranging all the plasma, condensed matter, matter and its associated fields together in gigantic filaments. Such filaments were supposedly sheparded together (as such) by conveniently positioned dark matter,

Just like we have seen with Cosmological Redshift and the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, once we scratch beneath the surface we find that no such evidence is actually there. In fact it becomes yet another example of spectacular failure in predictive success for ^CDM, which has a 4.6 ℅ predictive success rate, the worst in science, even worse than the PS rate of the climate change models.


"But the models predict it" This is what I am often told...


Well I have news for you, there is nothing in the Friedman Equations of any of the simulations done for the big bang which produces such a result. This result has been baked-in to the expansion in a more fundamental way than the inflation period was but for the sane purpose of retro-fitting from real world observations rather than projecting from theory.


It's all here in this episode of  "See The Pattern".



Finally, SOUTH AFRICA comes out of the closet as a BRICS nation in direction, not just in name.



GEOPOLITICS

Preface: It is vital to note that BRICS has emerged principally as a consequence of geopolitical maneuvering.
It is the emergence of great power's in the east that has altered the balance of power. That means ending the post WW2 hegemonic dominance of the Anglo American Western Empire (The US and its Capital Finance Petrodollar establishment of former colonial powers turned Western vassals).
To put it another way, United States and its reserve currency (USD) unipolar world is today already widely recognised as a multipolar world.  While it has been former cold war rival of the US, the then Soviet Union, todays Russian Federation, that has made the boldest and most sensational geostrategic and military advances, most notably the strategic defeat of the entirety of NATO through their proxy, Ukraine, the real momentum has actually been more gradually building quietly through China and India. In this way, many of the former Western vassals, the Petrodollar gulf monarchies and Iran, Brazil, Egypt and others have redefined global powers from OPEC, the G7 and The United Nations system and SWIFT financial instrument, to one taking shape and only recently finding actual implrmentation, around a BRICS structure.
Russia and China have sought to urgently diversify from their US Treasury holdings and found great success using gold and their own currency.   Russias oil for gold and oil for Rubles program's along with outstanding diplomacy have allowed them to defy weaponising of propaganda and such through the post Bretton Woods USD institution's.  This includes sanctions and measures by the US Departments of State and Pentagon, The UN, WEF, World Bank, EU, NATO to weaken their global standing.  Moreover, it has only resulted in stronger alliance's in BRICS as the emerging great powers know that they are stronger together and that each needs the other.
South Africa has been a slow starter and has only recently been making bold gestures of overt inclination towards the East as its economic destiny.
While SA's Manufacturing base has not been as supercharged as other BRICS nations and its trade balance is a deficit with BRICS partners, meaning it is still an import heavy nation, opportunities exist with commodities, energy and certain local niches such as the Rooibos tea grown only near the table mountain part of the globe. These are  products whose success in BRICS  is already ordained and only the absence of a gobal marketing  apperatus has left them unrealised.
This is what is missing from SA, and is the next step to take now that SA has been bolder it admitting publicly its BRICS aspirations and  in some cases even openly defied the US  attempts to them  to  heel.
Watch this space!
TRADE
There is no single formal "BRICS trade agreement," but rather a framework for economic cooperation with agreements on specific areas like customs and energy efficiency, supported by institutions like the New Development BankSouth Africa's trade with other BRICS nations is growing significantly, but it also faces a persistent trade deficit. The BRICS Business Council serves as a platform for the private sector to facilitate trade and investment, with a goal to create a more business-friendly environment. 
What is the BRICS Framework?
  • An informal association: 
    BRICS began as an informal alliance of economic powers and has evolved into an association that supports economic cooperation and the Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership. 
  • Key institutions: 
    The group has established the New Development Bank (NDB) for financing infrastructure projects and the BRICS Business Council to connect the business communities of member nation
  • No single trade bloc: 
    While focused on trade and investment, BRICS is not a formal trade bloc with a comprehensive, legally binding agreement. 
South Africa's Trade with BRICS Nations 
  • Growing importance: 
    BRICS nations are significant trading partners for South Africa, with substantial growth in both exports and imports since 2016.
  • Trade deficit: 
    South Africa has continuously recorded a growing deficit in its balance of trade with other BRICS economies, which has more than quadrupled since 2010, according to Business Tech.
  • Key beneficiaries: 
    Significant growth in South African exports to China has been a primary contributor to the overall trade increase.
Opportunities for Trade and Investment
  • Market access: 
    The BRICS framework aims to develop market access opportunities and inter-linkages between member countries. 
  • Agribusiness interest: 
    The South African agricultural sector is particularly interested in leveraging BRICS to boost exports of products like fruits, wine, wool, and beef to China and India. 
  • Conduit to Africa: 
    South Africa's developed infrastructure, including ports, railways, and logistics networks, positions it to act as a conduit for trade and investment into the wider African continent. 

The US Gave Clear And Explicit Assurances To Russia That NATO's Membership Would Not Be Expanded To Include Nations To It's East

 


I felt it necessary to make a few documents available from the National Security Archive at George Washington University at Washington DC. 

The reason should be self evident to anyone keeping up with international affairs. Both NATO and the US Foreign Policy elite reject such a proposal. This dishonest way of characterising recent geopolitical developments is perpetuated throughout Western influenced media, pop-culture and the internet thanks to the dominance of the crown jewel of the US Security State which is (of course) Google. The usual tactic is to avoid the direct and falsifiable little lies and to create a great a big lie through omission, gaming of search results and (see screenshot below) a net assessment by AI that is intended to prejudice anyone with curiosity before they get a chance to even go through the direct evidence.


Google Assessments made by its AI reflect the conclusion expected from its gaming of the system.

Here above is just an example of the AI assessment problem produced by Google's decision to prioritise chosen propaganda outlets such as CIA run Wikipedia and a host of think-tank sponsored quasi-statal institutions.

Now compare such a conclusion with direct evidence in documents I have linked to in the National Security Archive with respect to NATOs eastward expansion. I have chosen documents in the context of German Reunification since this required the express permission of the Soviet Union leadership just prior to the end of the Cold War. It includes formal documents sanctioned by official apparatus of state and concerns top diplomats such as James Baker and Russia leaders from Gorbechov to Yeltsin.



The Double Slit Illusion/ Lie

 

A guest post I wanted to host because I find it so worthwhile.

By Jason Verbelli  

This is an introduction to a chapter in my book series

There are 4 completely different double slit experiments which yield 4 different results thay have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

There are 16 possible combinations of outcomes for the double slit experiment(s) and none of them depend on a particle-wave duality or a literal mass to energy interchange.

In Book 1 on Light, I go into great detail on all the different combinations of results and how they are produced.

There is no real-world observer in the experiment at all like how cartoons and textbooks depict. There is no human looking at the experiment and flipping the patterns from observation.

They either send a spherical wavefront through the slits to produce 2 bands of light.

Or they send a plane wavefront through the slits to produce an interference pattern. 

But that interference pattern only shows up with they have the 2 slits within the diameter of the laser beam, so the beam of the laser shines through both slits simultaneously. And that causes secondary re-emissions of light with overlap the initial light. Primary light from the laser shines on the slits. But the edges of the slits themselves will re-emit new light which then overlaps to make the pattern.

The slits are about 2μ to 5μ apart.

Then you have the particle patterns.

They use a tungsten filament like a light bulb. The filament glows red hot at 4000˚F. That is inside of a black box that sits on a table top.

The tungsten filament gets so hot that it starts shooting off electrons wildly. The filament becomes a "thermionic heat source". It shoots off particles wildly like how a nuclear material shoots off particles. Just not as dangerous. But the particles that are shot off of the filament... they fly through the 2 tiny slits inside that closed box. It's like marbles shooting out of a cannon at a constant. And that produces 2 bands of particles on the detector screen inside the closed box.




Then you have the particle interference pattern.

That is made from focusing those wildly shooting particles from the 4000˚ filament using a magnetic lens. It's an electromagnet that focuses the charged particles into a beam just like the laser. But this is a particle beam. And again... the 2 slits need to fit within the diameter of that beam which is about 100 nm apart.

The electrons from the collimated beam shoot through both slits at the same time... but those primary electrons hit the edges of the slits. And the slits are made of atoms. So it induces secondary electron emissions from the edges of the slits themselves. And those secondary electron emissions overlap the primaries and they create the particle interference pattern on the detector screen.

But then they have a sensor inside the closed box. And all they do is remotely block 1 of the slits with the detector which then prevents the secondary electron emissions from making it to the screen.... and THAT is what they say is the "observer"..... All they do is block the damn slit and it changes the pattern distribution over time as the particles accumulate.

NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with some mythical particle-wave duality. There is no observer!! 

All they do is fabricate and lie in What the Bleep Do We Know, Flatland and Down The Rabbit Hole.

They claim the observer is just an "oversimplification."

But there is no observer! They just block the slit itself with a detector and sensor. That's it.

And then they claim the patterns of light shift back and forth with particles.

It's FOUR different experiments!! And then you can do the experiments in combinations if you have a sophisticated enough set up (which has never been done!) 

But there are a total of 16 possible combinations of particle pattern and light pattern distributions. 

Actually 15 combinations, but the 16th is not performing the experiment at all.


At what point does an "oversimplification" just become a flat out lie and fraud? 

People are allowed to continue to believe a mythical flipping of particles and waves, or that mass is bundles of energy beyond the Planck scale... or that observation manifests reality.

It's junk "Psyence" all based from relativity insisting the speed of light is the same to everyone no matter what. 

So they invented the concept of the 4th dimension, space-time, particle wave dualities, that mass literally increases with acceleration or velocity...a literal interchange of mass to energy/ vice versa ... and QED was born from those fallacies.

The same observations and results can be explained using ONLY classical physics, Hamiltonian and Newtonian Mechanics... but under "a new light"... literally.



The Fundamental & Elementary Flaws With The Reasoning Behind Gravitational Lensing In Cosmology



I think it is only fitting to point out that when gazing into the heavens through a telescope lens, it is the refraction of light that makes everything seem so much larger and clearer. Refraction occurs anytime light passes from a medium to another another medium of differing density. Space is filled with ionised plasma filaments, galaxies and other assortments of dust, matter and charged particles contained in defined shapes by magnetic fields. IE space is more than just space, it's an environment with potential to refract light when the conditions are right. 

Do not let the irony escape you, it is a lesson waiting to be learned.

Note too that the various rings, crosses and supposed mirrored deep field galaxies are prone to prisming of light at times, and there is no given reason put forward by proponents of gravitational Lensing to account for any part of the spectrum to be affected differently to the rest of the spectrum. All frequencies should be equally affected.

Bear in mind that there are now too many examples to count with my fingers of instances where we are told that supermassive black holes interact with each other, neutron stars, their own jets, wandering gas clouds etc where no lensing whatsoever is observed. Sagittarius A is a notable example of this. All I will say on that is "black swans are quite trendy pets to own these days.

But let's take a deeper dive. Thanks to Taking Fukatsu for pointing out the problems that are to follow. You can find more of his important articles at his blog xxx in both English and Japanese.


By Takaaki Fukatu

In correct optical lens theory, all gravitational lenses are concave lenses.

The mistake made by Einstein and Lord Eddington was that they misunderstood gravitational lenses to be convex lenses in the first place.

My conclusion is the following:

"Gravitational lenses are biconcave lenses that gradually increases in curvature toward the center, and Einstein rings do not form. And gravitational lenses only form blurred images.

In this case, an electromagnetic lens is more likely, since the electromagnetic force is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. A gravitational field that is 39 orders of magnitude weaker has almost no ability to bend light rays.

This means that Lord Eddington's prediction that light rays would bend due to a gravitational field is invalid, since light rays would be scattered in a gravitational field and would not form an image.

However, such a phenomenon is actually hypothetical, and as Dr. Dowdye pointed out and as observed by the Japanese artificial satellite Akatsuki, light rays are observed to be refracted by the atmospheric medium or diffraction by the edge of the atmosphere layers, or the edge of a rocky surface.

The reason is that light rays hardly ever slow down, whether by gravitational lensing or electromagnetic lensing."



These conclusions obviously have stunning implications for Cosmology and even for the broader field of physics in general.


Takaaki cites the following as most noteworthy in particular:

The motion of the stars that Arthur Eddington observed during a solar eclipse☆ could not have been observed with gravitational lensing. A faint ring-shaped virtual image of a halo would be observed. If a shift in the position of the stars were observed, it would be due to another optical cause. All that would be expected from gravitational lensing from the star behind during a solar eclipse is a slight increase in brightness around the Sun. If gravitational lensing exists, the star should "disappear before and after" being hidden by the Sun. Electromagnetic lensing is much stronger than gravitational lensing, and the effect of gravitational lensing would be almost invisible. 

The prediction of the entire scientific community at the time about gravitational lensing, "a shift in the position of the stars," is itself incorrect.

A resources post. SI Units And Constants In Physics.


 

Regarding standardised physics: The effort to make precise and unambiguous the task of quantifying nature (matter, numbers and material properties) and establishing the inherent relationships (+-√÷×% etc) we need SI Units.

SI units, or the International System of Units, are the modern metric system and the global standard for measurement, consisting of seven base units: the meter (length), kilogram (mass), second (time), ampere (electric current), kelvin (thermodynamic temperature), mole (amount of substance), and candela (luminous intensity).

The NIST reference on constants, units and uncertainty is HERE

The Wrong Cosmology in detail. Unpacking the Lambda CDM Standard Model


I am hosting an article published: October 31, 2024 3.05pm SAST by Prof. Konstantinos Dimopoulos of Lancaster University. This article represents the Standard Model or Lambda CDM Model of cosmology.  However, I put forward that this standard model is garbage. It is not only fundamentally flawed, but wrong on basically every account. 

It follows logically than when your base assumptions are wrong then all the reasoning that follows which is based on those assumptions is also likely to be wrong. Each assumption has its own post on my blog (search "assumptions in science").

Here is their wrong story:

 How did everything begin? It’s a question that humans have pondered for thousands of years. Over the last century or so, science has homed in on an answer: the Big Bang.

This describes how the Universe was born in a cataclysmic explosion almost 14 billion years ago. In a tiny fraction of a second, the observable universe grew by the equivalent of a bacterium expanding to the size of the Milky Way. The early universe was extraordinarily hot and extremely dense. But how do we know this happened?

Let’s look first at the evidence. In 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that distant galaxies are moving away from each other, leading to the realisation that the universe is expanding. If we were to wind the clock back to the birth of the cosmos, the expansion would reverse and the galaxies would fall on top of each other 14 billion years ago. This age agrees nicely with the ages of the oldest astronomical objects we observe.

The idea was initially met with skepticism – and it was actually a sceptic, the English astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the name. Hoyle sarcastically dismissed the hypothesis as a “Big Bang” during an interview with BBC radio on March 28 1949.

This is article is part of our series Cosmology in crisis? which uncovers the greatest problems facing cosmologists today – and discusses the implications of solving them.

Then, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected a particular type of radiation that fills all of space. This became known as the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. It is a kind of afterglow of the Big Bang explosion, released when the cosmos was a mere 380,000 years old.

History of the universe

NASA

The CMB provides a window into the hot, dense conditions at the beginning of the universe. Penzias and Wilson were awarded the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery.

More recently, experiments at particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have shed light on conditions even closer to the time of the Big Bang. Our understanding of physics at these high energies suggests that, in the very first moments after the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces of physics that exist today were initially combined in a single force.

The present day four forces are gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. As the universe expanded and cooled down, a series of dramatic changes, called phase transitions (like the boiling or freezing of water), separated these forces.

Experiments at particle accelerators suggest that a few billionths of a second after the Big Bang, the latest of these phase transitions took place. This was the breakdown of electroweak unification, when electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force ceased to be combined. This is when all the matter in the Universe assumed its mass.

Barred spiral galaxy NGC 1672

Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies were moving away from one another. NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration

Moving on further in time, the universe is filled with a strange substance called quark-gluon plasma. As the name suggests, this “primordial soup” was made up of quarks and gluons. These are sub-atomic particles that are responsible for the strong nuclear force. Quark-gluon plasma was artificially generated in 2010 at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and in 2015 at the LHC.


Quarks and gluons have a strong attraction for one other and today are bound together as protons and neutrons, which in turn are the building blocks of atoms. However, in the hot and dense conditions of the early universe, they existed independently.


The quark-gluon plasma didn’t last long. Just a few millionths of a second after the Big Bang, as the universe expanded and cooled, quarks and gluons clumped together as protons and neutrons, the situation that persists today. This event is called quark confinement.


The Sun

The early universe was extremely hot and dense, much like the centre of the Sun. NASA/SDO

As the universe expanded and cooled still further, there were fewer high energy photons (particles of light) in the universe than there had previously been. This is a trigger for the process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). This is when the first atomic nuclei – the dense lumps of matter made of protons and neutrons and found at the centres of atoms – formed through nuclear fusion reactions, like those that power the Sun.


Back when there were more high energy photons in the universe, any atomic nuclei that formed would have been quickly destroyed by them (a process called photodisintegration). BBN ceased just a few minutes after the Big Bang, but its consequences are observable today.


Observations by astronomers have provided us with evidence for the primordial abundances of elements produced in these fusion reactions. The results closely agree with the theory of BBN. If we continued on, over nearly 14 billion years of time, we would reach the situation that exists today. But how close can we get to understanding what was happening near the moment of the Big Bang itself?


Alice experiment

The Large Hadron Collider’s Alice experiment can generate quark-gluon plasma. Maximilien Brice / Cern, Author provided (no reuse)

Scientists have no direct evidence for what came before the breakdown of electroweak unification (when electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force ceased to be combined). At such high energies and early times, we can only stare at the mystery of the Big Bang. So what does theory suggest?


When we go backwards in time through the history of the cosmos, the distances and volumes shrink, while the average energy density grows. At the Big Bang, distances and volumes drop to zero, all parts of the universe fall on top of each other and the energy density of the universe becomes infinite. Our mathematical equations, which describe the evolution of space and the expansion of the cosmos, become infested by zeros and infinities and stop making sense.


We call this a singularity. Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity describes how spacetime is shaped. Spacetime is a way of describing the three-dimensional geometry of the universe, blended with time. A curvature in spacetime gives rise to gravity.


But mathematics suggests there are places in the universe where the curvature of spacetime becomes unlimited. These locations are known as singularities. One such example can be found at the centre of a black hole. At these places, the theory of general relativity breaks down.


Panchromatic view of galaxy cluster MACS0416

The universe cooled as it continued to expand. NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, J. Diego (Instituto de Física de Cantabria, Spain), J. D’Silva (U. Western Australia), A. Koekemoer (STScI), J. Summers & R. Windhorst (ASU), and H. Yan (U. Missouri).

From 1965 to 1966, the British theoretical physicists Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose presented a number of mathematical theorems demonstrating that the spacetime of an expanding universe must end at a singularity in the past: the Big Bang singularity.


Penrose received the Nobel Prize in 2020. Hawking passed away in 2018 and Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously. Space and time appear at the Big Bang singularity, so questions of what happens “before” the Big Bang are not well defined. As far as science can tell, there is no before; the Big Bang is the onset of time.


However, nature is not accurately described by general relativity alone, even though the latter has been around for more than 100 years and has not been disproven. General relativity cannot describe atoms, nuclear fusion or radioactivity. These phenomena are instead addressed by quantum theory.


Theories from “classical” physics, such as relativity, are deterministic. This means that certain initial conditions have a definite outcome and are therefore absolutely predictive. Quantum theory, on the other hand, is probabilistic. This means that certain initial conditions in the universe can have multiple outcomes.


Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), as observed by the Planck mission.

Tiny differences in the CMB tell us about the age, expansion and contents of the universe. ESA and the Planck Collaboration

Quantum theory is somewhat predictive, but in a probabilistic way. Outcomes are assigned a probability of existing. If the mathematical distribution of probabilities is sharply peaked at a certain outcome, then the situation is well described by a “classical” theory such as general relativity. But not all systems are like this. In some systems, for example atoms, the probability distribution is spread out and a classical description does not apply.


What about gravity? In the vast majority of cases, gravity is well described by classical physics. Classical spacetime is smooth. However, when curvature becomes extreme, near a singularity, then the quantum nature of gravity cannot be ignored. Here, spacetime is no longer smooth, but gnarly, similar to a carpet which looks smooth from afar but up-close is full of fibres and threads.


Thus, near the Big Bang singularity, the structure of spacetime ceases to be smooth. Mathematical theorems suggest that spacetime becomes overwhelmed by “gnarly” features: hooks, loops and bubbles. This rapidly fluctuating situation is called spacetime foam.


Black hole

At singularities, such as at the centres of black holes, the classical theory of relativity breaks down. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Jeremy Schnittman

In spacetime foam, causality does not apply, because there are closed loops in spacetime where the future of an event is also its past (so its outcome can also be its cause). The probabilistic nature of quantum theory suggests that, when the probability distribution is evenly spread out, all outcomes are equally possible and the comfortable notion of causality we associate with a classical understanding of physics is lost.


Therefore, if we go back in time, just before we encounter the Big Bang singularity, we find ourselves entering an epoch where the quantum effects of gravity are dominant and causality does not apply. This is called the Planck epoch.


Time ceases to be linear, going from the past to the future, and instead becomes wrapped, chaotic and random. This means the question “why did the Big Bang occur?” has no meaning, because outside causality, events do not need a cause to take place.


In order to understand how physics works at a singularity like the Big Bang, we need a theory for how gravity behaves according to quantum theory. Unfortunately, we do not have one. There are a number of efforts on this front like loop quantum gravity and string theory, with its various incarnations.


Spacetime foam

Near the Big Bang singularity, spacetime takes on a structure similar to foam. NASA/CXC/M.Weiss

However, these efforts are at best incomplete, because the problem is notoriously difficult. This means that spacetime foam has a totemic, powerful mystique, much like the ancient Chaos of Hesiod which the Greeks believed existed in the beginning.


So how did our expanding and largely classical universe ever escape from spacetime foam? This brings us to cosmic inflation. The latter is defined as a period of accelerated expansion in the early universe. It was first introduced by the Russian theoretical physicist Alexei Starobinsky in 1980 and in parallel, that same year, by the American physicist Alan Guth, who coined the name.


Inflation makes the universe large and uniform, according to observations. It also forces the universe to be spatially flat, which is an otherwise unstable situation, but which has also been confirmed by observations. Moreover, inflation provides a natural mechanism to generate the primordial irregularities in the density of the universe that are essential for structures such as galaxies and galaxy clusters to form.


Theory vindicated

Precision observations of the cosmic microwave background in recent decades have spectacularly confirmed the predictions of inflation. We also know that the universe can indeed undergo accelerated expansion, because in the last few billion years it started doing it again.


What does this have to do with spacetime foam? Well, it turns out that, if the conditions for inflation arise (by chance) in a patch of fluctuating spacetime, as can occur with spacetime foam, then this region inflates and starts conforming to classical physics.


Alan Guth

Professor Alan Guth, from MIT, describes inflation as a theory of the ‘bang’ of the Big Bang. JUAN CARLOS CARDENAS / EPA IMAGES

According to an idea first proposed by the Russian-American physicist Andrei Linde, inflation is a natural – and perhaps inevitable – consequence of chaotic initial conditions in the early universe.


The point is that our classical universe could have emerged from chaotic conditions, like those in spacetime foam, by experiencing an initial boost of inflation. This would have set off the expansion of the universe. In fact, the observations by astronomers of the CMB suggest that the initial boost is explosive, since the expansion is exponential during inflation.


In March 20 of 2014, Alan Guth explained it succinctly: “I usually describe inflation as a theory of the ‘bang’ of the Big Bang: It describes the propulsion mechanism that we call the Big Bang.”


So, there you have it. The 14 billion year story of our universe begins with a cataclysmic explosion everywhere in space, which we call the Big Bang. That much is beyond reasonable doubt. This explosion is really a period of explosive expansion, which we call cosmic inflation. What happens before inflation, though? Is it a spacetime singularity, is it spacetime foam? The answer is largely unknown.


In fact, it might even be unknowable, because there is a mathematical theorem which forbids us from accessing information about the onset of inflation, much like the one that prevents us from knowing about the interiors of black holes. So, from our point of view, cosmic inflation is the Big Bang, the explosion that started it all.

Labels

Search This Blog

Your Feedback

Name

Email *

Message *