Big Bang may have been Big Bounce + Look back at 40 year voyage to Barnard's Star

Scientists: The Big Bang May Have Actually Been the ‘Big Bounce’
http://futurism.com/new-simulation-suppo...-big-bang/

EXCERPT: A team of physicists from the UK and Canada have created a computer simulation that points to the Big Bounce theory rather than the Big Bang. They state that the universe we know today is the sequel to a previous one that collapsed. They state that despite this periodical collapse, the universe does not completely get destroyed because the effects of quantum mechanics preserves it, allowing it to spring back to what it is today....

---

"The 40-Year Voyage to Barnard's Star" --A Look Back at the World's 1st Study of an Unmanned Spaceship to Explore a Nearby Star
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...p-to-.html

The world's first engineering study of an unmanned spaceship to explore one of the nearer stars was made by a technical group of the British Interplanetary Society between 1973-77. The target selected for the exercise was Barnard's Star, six light years distant from Earth. The team recognised that the work, based on the technology extrapolated to the beginning of the 21st Century, could represent only a first approximation to the solution of starflight.

The results showed it would be a formidable task requiring a massive craft that would dwarf the Saturn V moon rocket, the largest space vehicle yet flown by man. Daedalus, as currently conceived, would weigh some 54,000 tons, nearly 20 times the weight of the Saturn V, carrying nearly 500 tonnes of fully automated payload. Because of the enormous time lag involved in radio communications between the Earth and the ship, a semi-intelligent computer would have to control the entire ship and work out all actions necessary for the exploration phase of the mission.

The result was a two stage, nuclear fusion powered vehicle, unmanned and under autonomous operation due to the distances involved, accelerated to 16% of the speed of light, and armed with a variety of probes, sensors, robotic wardens and intelligent decision making computers. Although the journey could take as long as 40 years, a flyby at such speeds would be over in 70 hours.

Although the study was conducted during the 70's, it's still referred to today, even in NASA, as a baseline study. Any future mission to the stars probably won't look anything like Daedalus, but it gives a good idea of the complexity and scale of task, and the length of time it would take to get to even the closest stars.

No estimate of the cost of such an enterprise could be made, but it would be way beyond the capacity of an individual nation, and would probably need a period of world stability unlike any we have seen to date....

(Jul 16, 2016 02:29 AM)C C Wrote: Scientists: The Big Bang May Have Actually Been the ‘Big Bounce’
http://futurism.com/new-simulation-suppo...-big-bang/

EXCERPT: A team of physicists from the UK and Canada have created a computer simulation that points to the Big Bounce theory rather than the Big Bang. They state that the universe we know today is the sequel to a previous one that collapsed. They state that despite this periodical collapse, the universe does not completely get destroyed because the effects of quantum mechanics preserves it, allowing it to spring back to what it is today....

I could be wrong in the assumption but I've always considered that the cosmological reason for why the Big Bang was named so, actually had little to do with an actual explosion but was actually related to the Rate of Expansion being explosive in speed.

I'm sure I could troll through numerous papers and maybe even find I'm incorrect if I looked directly to the source material, however it's still always made more sense to me than a universe being born from blowing something up.

As I might of stated before (or maybe not) I have considered a different (and particular complex) model that involves the universe actually being a "Big Number Crunch".

To me the Present Big Bang can be recreated through the reasoning of how an infinite number of universes working together to create a composite of finite spacetime volumes to create the universe is accomplished.  

In this particular theory it uses a reasoning that one spacetime simulation volume/model is created, then through a super-symmetry method of applying paradoxical versions of that same model (parallel universes) to difference positions within the composite framework (the universe as a multiworld model) it creates a infinite fractal of such volumes emanating out from the initial volume.

If such a system was built, then the very first thing that would be done is actually a Benchmark.  Benchmark's are tests to push the limits of a system to work out what bounds exist.    Starting the first volume up to populate with it's maximum bound of energy (similar to Bekenstein bounds) would then dissimulate across the entire fractal, one step at a time ad-infinitum.  Even after the Benchmark was complete and the systems re-applied from computing it's bound to actually structure development (moving from pure energy to developing proto-matter etc).  The initial event would continue to emanate outwards at the very edge of this universal structure.  (The edge of the universe).

One point was in a structure where many universes work towards creating a volume of energy, they would be tasked to maintain that one volume of energy so as to simulate that energy can't be destroyed or recreated (The initial volume can't be recreated, any "copy" is actually a completely different separate volume due to super-symmetry).  It's also a way to create an infinite amount of energy (So a number of things involving that as being a necessity are actually possible, at least in theory)



This "blurt" (in the sense that it tries to convey most of the important parts but lacks a lot of explanations which can lead to misconceptions of whats being said.) which means it's unfortunate only the tip of the iceberg as to what considerations I've had.  I don't know if I'll ever be able to piece it together in it's full weight, as I would suspect it would probably equal the length of Tolstoy's "War and Peace" and it's difficult to put all the pieces that I've worked out together without it looking like a hack job.

(Jul 19, 2016 06:50 PM)stryder Wrote: I could be wrong in the assumption but I've always considered that the cosmological reason for why the Big Bang was named so, actually had little to do with an actual explosion but was actually related to the Rate of Expansion being explosive in speed.

I'm sure I could troll through numerous papers and maybe even find I'm incorrect if I looked directly to the source material, however it's still always made more sense to me than a universe being born from blowing something up.

The term big bang was sarcastically coined by Fred Hoyle in his "Nature of the Universe" lectures on BBC radio.  LeMaitre originally came up with the idea of a Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation.  My understanding is that the idea of a singularity itself came from Einstein’s equations of gravity, but since these equations break down at infinite density and temperature, they can’t really be used to determine if there was a singularity or not.  

Here’s the full article if you’re interested in reading it.  

Perfect Quantum Cosmological Bounce pdf

RPenner said that we should always show when a link is a pdf.  Why is that, Stryder?

(Jul 20, 2016 02:43 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Jul 19, 2016 06:50 PM)stryder Wrote: I could be wrong in the assumption but I've always considered that the cosmological reason for why the Big Bang was named so, actually had little to do with an actual explosion but was actually related to the Rate of Expansion being explosive in speed.

I'm sure I could troll through numerous papers and maybe even find I'm incorrect if I looked directly to the source material, however it's still always made more sense to me than a universe being born from blowing something up.

The term big bang was sarcastically coined by Fred Hoyle in his "Nature of the Universe" lectures on BBC radio.  LeMaitre originally came up with the idea of a Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation.  My understanding is that the idea of a singularity itself came from Einstein’s equations of gravity, but since these equations break down at infinite density and temperature, they can’t really be used to determine if there was a singularity or not.  

Here’s the full article if you’re interested in reading it.  

Perfect Quantum Cosmological Bounce pdf

RPenner said that we should always show when a link is a pdf.  Why is that, Stryder?

Thanks for that, I'll have a read when I have a chance.

RPenner's point might have been down to Pdf's potentially containing external links and internal code.  HTML is interpreted by the browser, however PDF uses an external application which is outside of the common browser standards which attempt to reduce exploitation through sandboxing.

(Jul 19, 2016 06:50 PM)stryder Wrote: I could be wrong in the assumption but I've always considered that the cosmological reason for why the Big Bang was named so, actually had little to do with an actual explosion but was actually related to the Rate of Expansion being explosive in speed.

I'm sure I could troll through numerous papers and maybe even find I'm incorrect if I looked directly to the source material, however it's still always made more sense to me than a universe being born from blowing something up.

Yah, talk-origins once had a cosmology section of sorts that debunked the "exploding singularity" depiction. Pop-sci making it sound back in the old days like the "primal atom" or some compact nugget of matter had exploded would also be a skewered metaphor in another way, since minus any "outside" to the universe such would be size-less. One can internally compare its expanded or less dense condition of today to the earlier state, but there's no "object or space beyond" as a reference source for "size" -- a justification for making the original condition sound "small".

If one literally accepted the claims that the universe is infinite (both then and now), that would be another factor making it size-less or immeasurable. Of course, if "endlessness" is treated as a completed condition or fixed magnitude, then it's actually finite (the assertion contradicts itself). "Infinity" in the concrete sense seems to have to mean the open-ended potential to add more or divide more either continuously or intermittently. The abstract concoctions that have some infinite series of numbers being declared "larger" than others can likewise be deemed to having to be converted to processes in the "real world" rather than static / completed sets. Since such quantitative generators would never cease to add more to their sequences regardless of their supposed distinctions, claims of of one infinite producer being "larger" than another sort of become moot in that context.