Indian has new theory on Big Bang
17 Apr 2008, 0007 hrs IST,ANI

LONDON: A new controversial analysis by an astronomer of Indian origin
has suggested that the Big Bang might not have come at the beginning
of the Universe, but after a long and slow period of shrinkage.

According to a report, the theory has been put forward by Amit Yadav,
an astronomer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

If this theory holds any ground, it would show that the early universe
did not inflate with the smoothness that many theorists expected. "The
standard, canonical models will be ruled out if this holds," said
Yadav. "The simplicity is gone," he added.

Yadav's result suggests that models of inflation - a furious
hyperexpansion in the instant after the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years
ago - have to be much more complicated than previously thought, or
else that inflation never occurred at all and that the Big Bang came
after a period of contraction.

"If the result sticks, it would be the first time that one of the
predictions of simple inflation failed. And it could also lead to a
radical reinterpretation of what the Big Bang was and whether it
marked the universe's beginning,"he said.

Standard, simple inflation – needed to achieve a flat, smooth universe
- holds that, just after the Big Bang, a uniform negative
gravitational field drove a brief period of accelerated expansion.

Then the field died out, creating the matter and energy known in the
universe today and leaving an afterglow of microwave radiation just a
few degrees above absolute zero. If simple inflation theory is right,
this imprint should be almost, but not quite, perfectly gaussian - a
pattern with smooth-looking noise.

The analysis of Yadav and adviser Benjamin Wandelt showed that the CMB
map was not gaussian with a certainty of 99.5%.

On Apr 17, 5:32 am, visualseep...@yahoo.com wrote:





Indian has new theory on Big Bang
17 Apr 2008, 0007 hrs IST,ANI

LONDON: A new controversial analysis by an astronomer of Indian origin
has suggested that the Big Bang might not have come at the beginning
of the Universe, but after a long and slow period of shrinkage.

According to a report, the theory has been put forward by Amit Yadav,
an astronomer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

If this theory holds any ground, it would show that the early universe
did not inflate with the smoothness that many theorists expected. "The
standard, canonical models will be ruled out if this holds," said
Yadav. "The simplicity is gone," he added.

Yadav's result suggests that models of inflation - a furious
hyperexpansion in the instant after the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years
ago - have to be much more complicated than previously thought, or
else that inflation never occurred at all and that the Big Bang came
after a period of contraction.

"If the result sticks, it would be the first time that one of the
predictions of simple inflation failed. And it could also lead to a
radical reinterpretation of what the Big Bang was and whether it
marked the universe's beginning,"he said.

Standard, simple inflation – needed to achieve a flat, smooth universe
- holds that, just after the Big Bang, a uniform negative
gravitational field drove a brief period of accelerated expansion.

Then the field died out, creating the matter and energy known in the
universe today and leaving an afterglow of microwave radiation just a
few degrees above absolute zero. If simple inflation theory is right,
this imprint should be almost, but not quite, perfectly gaussian - a
pattern with smooth-looking noise.

The analysis of Yadav and adviser Benjamin Wandelt showed that the CMB
map was not gaussian with a certainty of 99.5%.

-------------------
now a question:
according to that new theory
what was the susbtance of the physical entity at the moment
of BB:
was it pure energy
or was it a mixture of  energy plus some basic particles??

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 21, 7:52 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Apr 17, 5:32 am, visualseep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Indian has new theory on Big Bang
17 Apr 2008, 0007 hrs IST,ANI
The analysis of Yadav and adviser Benjamin Wandelt showed that the CMB
map was not gaussian with a certainty of 99.5%.

-------------------
now a question:
according to that new theory
what was the susbtance of the physical entity at the moment
of BB:
was it pure energy
or was it a mixture of  energy plus some basic particles??

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

the universe began at the beginning,
and may have done so repeatedly...
In simply terms:
take an object in hand that CAN be compressed,
perhaps a solid but soft rubber ball...
imagine if you could apply equal pressure to
compress the object to half  than it's
original size,or greater compresion, the result is an object that
now has a given force of pressure wanting to
expand to it's original size and shape.

Take this to an astonomical level - Black holes,
and you have the object that will suck in using
the unimaginable power of gravity to compress
Anything! and crush it down - imagine that Black hole
merging with another - the power imediately becomes
greater - swalowing up anything and everything that
comes close - given sufficient time.. it will
come in contact eventually with all matter in the universe,

when that last chuck of rock falls in - it tips the
power in the other direction - the force of gravity
within the black hole holding everything in -
and the force of the compressed matter within wanting to
expand outward - as the power struggle mounts,
the black hole becomes unstable, and reliquishes control,
the end result - a ginormous BigBang!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 21, 3:13 pm, neutrino <stua...@bluebottle.com> wrote:





On Apr 21, 7:52 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 17, 5:32 am, visualseep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Indian has new theory on Big Bang
17 Apr 2008, 0007 hrs IST,ANI
 > > > The analysis of Yadav and adviser Benjamin Wandelt showed that the CMB
map was not gaussian with a certainty of 99.5%.

-------------------
now a question:
according to that new theory
what was the susbtance of the physical entity at the moment
of BB:
was it pure energy
or was it a mixture of  energy plus some basic particles??

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

the universe began at the beginning,
and may have done so repeatedly...
In simply terms:
take an object in hand that CAN be compressed,
perhaps a solid but soft rubber ball...
imagine if you could apply equal pressure to
compress the object to half  than it's
original size,or greater compresion, the result is an object that
now has a given force of pressure wanting to
expand to it's original size and shape.

Take this to an astonomical level - Black holes,
and you have the object that will suck in using
the unimaginable power of gravity to compress
Anything! and crush it down - imagine that Black hole
merging with another - the power imediately becomes
greater - swalowing up anything and everything that
comes close - given sufficient time.. it will
come in contact eventually with all matter in the universe,

when that last chuck of rock falls in - it tips the
power in the other direction - the force of gravity
within the black hole holding everything in -
and the force of the compressed matter within wanting to
expand outward - as the power struggle mounts,
the black hole becomes unstable, and reliquishes control,
the end result - a ginormous BigBang!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------------
so you suggest that the situation before or in  in moment of
BB was a black hole

it seems your private understanding
i am not sure it is the common understanding
ie
it was sort of compressed matter
yet what was that 'compressed' matter specifically??
was it quarks was it as your name Neutrinos ??
or what ?
what is your experimental evidence for your
suggetions ??

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 22, 3:18 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:





On Apr 21, 3:13 pm, neutrino <stua...@bluebottle.com> wrote:

On Apr 21, 7:52 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 17, 5:32 am, visualseep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Indian has new theory on Big Bang
17 Apr 2008, 0007 hrs IST,ANI
 > > > The analysis of Yadav and adviser Benjamin Wandelt showed that the CMB
map was not gaussian with a certainty of 99.5%.

-------------------
now a question:
according to that new theory
what was the susbtance of the physical entity at the moment
of BB:
was it pure energy
or was it a mixture of  energy plus some basic particles??

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

the universe began at the beginning,
and may have done so repeatedly...
In simply terms:
take an object in hand that CAN be compressed,
perhaps a solid but soft rubber ball...
imagine if you could apply equal pressure to
compress the object to half  than it's
original size,or greater compresion, the result is an object that
now has a given force of pressure wanting to
expand to it's original size and shape.

Take this to an astonomical level - Black holes,
and you have the object that will suck in using
the unimaginable power of gravity to compress
Anything! and crush it down - imagine that Black hole
merging with another - the power imediately becomes
greater - swalowing up anything and everything that
comes close - given sufficient time.. it will
come in contact eventually with all matter in the universe,

when that last chuck of rock falls in - it tips the
power in the other direction - the force of gravity
within the black hole holding everything in -
and the force of the compressed matter within wanting to
expand outward - as the power struggle mounts,
the black hole becomes unstable, and reliquishes control,
the end result - a ginormous BigBang!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------------
so you suggest that the situation before or in  in moment of
BB was a black hole

it seems your private understanding
i am not sure it is the common understanding
ie
it was sort of compressed matter
yet what was that 'compressed' matter specifically??
was it quarks was it as your name Neutrinos ??
or what ?
what is your experimental evidence for your
suggetions ??

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

there is no way of knowing what happens to all matter after entering a
black hole, the forces at work within are just to great to comprehend
or experiment to discover - unless someone can come up with a means of
generating a similar force of nature as powerful !!!    but the
possibility of such an occurence - is easy to imagine - we know Black
Holes exist, we know what they do,  it's common sense to appreciate
that all mattter that gets caught will be crushed compacted
Infinitesimally small - it stands to reason that these things cannot
be stopped - it may take billions of  billions of years to move
around, consuming all in it's path - but this happens....  eventually
all matter will come in contact, however long it takes, and the
greater the power of a Black hole.. the greatr it becomes, the greater
it's reach to pull in that matter - and the universe will contract
into a singular black hole - and I envisage the power struggle as it
tries to contain everything - the inevitable conclusion will be
reached, all matter within will expand and explode outward(bigBang) -
we have the evidence of it happening once -big bang theory- ,  there
is every likelyhood of it happening repeatedly, and as for  how it
might happen repeatedly - this is one  possible theory to consider.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 21, 8:40 pm, neutrino <stua...@bluebottle.com> wrote:





On Apr 22, 3:18 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 21, 3:13 pm, neutrino <stua...@bluebottle.com> wrote:

On Apr 21, 7:52 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 17, 5:32 am, visualseep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Indian has new theory on Big Bang
17 Apr 2008, 0007 hrs IST,ANI
 > > > The analysis of Yadav and adviser Benjamin Wandelt showed that the CMB
map was not gaussian with a certainty of 99.5%.

-------------------
now a question:
according to that new theory
what was the susbtance of the physical entity at the moment
of BB:
was it pure energy
or was it a mixture of  energy plus some basic particles??

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

the universe began at the beginning,
and may have done so repeatedly...
In simply terms:
take an object in hand that CAN be compressed,
perhaps a solid but soft rubber ball...
imagine if you could apply equal pressure to
compress the object to half  than it's
original size,or greater compresion, the result is an object that
now has a given force of pressure wanting to
expand to it's original size and shape.

Take this to an astonomical level - Black holes,
and you have the object that will suck in using
the unimaginable power of gravity to compress
Anything! and crush it down - imagine that Black hole
merging with another - the power imediately becomes
greater - swalowing up anything and everything that
comes close - given sufficient time.. it will
come in contact eventually with all matter in the universe,

when that last chuck of rock falls in - it tips the
power in the other direction - the force of gravity
within the black hole holding everything in -
and the force of the compressed matter within wanting to
expand outward - as the power struggle mounts,
the black hole becomes unstable, and reliquishes control,
the end result - a ginormous BigBang!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------------
so you suggest that the situation before or in  in moment of
BB was a black hole

it seems your private understanding
i am not sure it is the common understanding
ie
it was sort of compressed matter
yet what was that 'compressed' matter specifically??
was it quarks was it as your name Neutrinos ??
or what ?
what is your experimental evidence for your
suggetions ??

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

there is no way of knowing what happens to all matter after entering a
black hole, the forces at work within are just to great to comprehend
or experiment to discover - unless someone can come up with a means of
generating a similar force of nature as powerful !!!    but the
possibility of such an occurence - is easy to imagine - we know Black
Holes exist, we know what they do,  it's common sense to appreciate
that all mattter that gets caught will be crushed compacted
Infinitesimally small - it stands to reason that these things cannot
be stopped - it may take billions of  billions of years to move
around, consuming all in it's path - but this happens....  eventually
all matter will come in contact, however long it takes, and the
greater the power of a Black hole.. the greatr it becomes, the greater
it's reach to pull in that matter - and the universe will contract
into a singular black hole - and I envisage the power struggle as it
tries to contain everything - the inevitable conclusion will be
reached, all matter within will expand and explode outward(bigBang) -
we have the evidence of it happening once -big bang theory- ,  there
is every likelyhood of it happening repeatedly, and as for  how it
might happen repeatedly - this is one  possible theory to consider.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-------------
all right
but there i snothing quanitative in your response
2
who told you that the BB was a black hole situation ??

the big bang is alegedly was containing **all black oles**
and all mater and energy !!??

so if you cant answer my orriginal question:
what was the original physical substance
for instance
was it matter ?
was it energy?
was it a mixture of both of them ??

and if you dont know
please say :
'i dont know '
and may be others think they know ??....(...

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
sorry if I didn't correctly answer your question -

On Apr 22, 8:57 pm, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Apr 21, 8:40 pm, neutrino <stua...@bluebottle.com> wrote:

On Apr 22, 3:18 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 21, 3:13 pm, neutrino <stua...@bluebottle.com> wrote:

On Apr 21, 7:52 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 17, 5:32 am, visualseep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Indian has new theory on Big Bang
17 Apr 2008, 0007 hrs IST,ANI
 > > > The analysis of Yadav and adviser Benjamin Wandelt showed that the CMB
map was not gaussian with a certainty of 99.5%.

-------------------
now a question:
according to that new theory
what was the susbtance of the physical entity at the moment
of BB:
was it pure energy
or was it a mixture of  energy plus some basic particles??

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

the universe began at the beginning,
and may have done so repeatedly...
In simply terms:
take an object in hand that CAN be compressed,
perhaps a solid but soft rubber ball...
imagine if you could apply equal pressure to
compress the object to half  than it's
original size,or greater compresion, the result is an object that
now has a given force of pressure wanting to
expand to it's original size and shape.

Take this to an astonomical level - Black holes,
and you have the object that will suck in using
the unimaginable power of gravity to compress
Anything! and crush it down - imagine that Black hole
merging with another - the power imediately becomes
greater - swalowing up anything and everything that
comes close - given sufficient time.. it will
come in contact eventually with all matter in the universe,

when that last chuck of rock falls in - it tips the
power in the other direction - the force of gravity
within the black hole holding everything in -
and the force of the compressed matter within wanting to
expand outward - as the power struggle mounts,
the black hole becomes unstable, and reliquishes control,
the end result - a ginormous BigBang!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------------
so you suggest that the situation before or in  in moment of
BB was a black hole

it seems your private understanding
i am not sure it is the common understanding
ie
it was sort of compressed matter
yet what was that 'compressed' matter specifically??
was it quarks was it as your name Neutrinos ??
or what ?
what is your experimental evidence for your
suggetions ??

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

there is no way of knowing what happens to all matter after entering a
black hole, the forces at work within are just to great to comprehend
or experiment to discover - unless someone can come up with a means of
generating a similar force of nature as powerful !!!    but the
possibility of such an occurence - is easy to imagine - we know Black
Holes exist, we know what they do,  it's common sense to appreciate
that all mattter that gets caught will be crushed compacted
Infinitesimally small - it stands to reason that these things cannot
be stopped - it may take billions of  billions of years to move
around, consuming all in it's path - but this happens....  eventually
all matter will come in contact, however long it takes, and the
greater the power of a Black hole.. the greatr it becomes, the greater
it's reach to pull in that matter - and the universe will contract
into a singular black hole - and I envisage the power struggle as it
tries to contain everything - the inevitable conclusion will be
reached, all matter within will expand and explode outward(bigBang) -
we have the evidence of it happening once -big bang theory- ,  there
is every likelyhood of it happening repeatedly, and as for  how it
might happen repeatedly - this is one  possible theory to consider.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-------------
all right
but there i snothing quanitative in your response
2
who told you that the BB was a black hole situation ??

the big bang is alegedly was containing **all black oles**
and all mater and energy !!??

so if you cant answer my orriginal question:
what was the original physical substance
for instance
was it matter ?
was it energy?
was it a mixture of both of them ??

and if you dont know
please say :
'i dont know '
and may be others think they know ??....(...

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

sorry if I didn't correctly answer your question -
no, the short answer is - I don't know.
A black hole is the one thing we know of that CAN
consume all matter - so it's plain logic that these are the one
item in cosmic phenomena, that could potentially bring all matter into
one place,
even if doing so took "forever", and if there was indeed a BigBang at
the start of everything,
that BigBang was the release of all material - it was all contained in
one place.. and as I'v said, the one thing we know of that could bring
all matter together -over time - is a Black Hole,
whether or not the forces within would eventually cause it to
destabalize - but it seems likely it could happen and may explain the
BigBang occurrence, and if it happened once like this - then I see no
reason for it not to happen again.
Exactly what happens to matter when it enters a black hole? who
knows... and what happens when vast quantities get pulled in ??  it
may and likely gets transformed into other forms of matter,
I simply hypothesise that this may be a possibility, as one black hole
meets another untill you end up with a single unimaginably huge and
powerful Black Hole - would it be able to contain all the matter in
the universe - or once it had done so - would it then become unstable
and the forces within overcome the force of the black hole itself -
and result in a explosive force so great as to expell all the matter
within?   and maybe explain what the BigBang really was?   and if so -
I repeat myself - could such a thing take place repeatedly ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------------------
repeatedly ??
it might be if our universe will stop expanding and stsrt contraction
(yet we will have to live for it a bit more than
the next 100 years  (:-)

now let me tell you the little i gathered from Google:

it is sayed there that at the BB all our physical entity was
'in palnck state '
fo r  me 'Planck' sate is pure energy
now  i would like to know if somebody else
understands it as i do ??

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------------------
repeatedly ??
it might be if our universe will stop expanding and stsrt contraction
(yet we will have to live for it a bit more than
the next 100 years  (:-)

now let me tell you the little i gathered from Google:

it is sayed there that at the BB all our physical entity was
'in palnck state '
fo r  me 'Planck' sate is pure energy
now  i would like to know if somebody else
understands it as i do ??

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ha~ yes we Would have to live longer than next 100years (
might need to add a quantum string of several more zeros to it :)

some more reading.... and  a link or two to check out....

Pure Energy - how do You understand it ?

all matter on entering a black hole, is likely stripped down to it's
atomic particles, a rock for example would be ripped apart down to
it's very atoms, what enters as a rock would in an instant become a
stream of atoms, on impacting at the BlackHole core, these would be
compressed so tight that, as is said below " so that they cannot
vibrate!" & "What happens to the huge amount of energy that locking-in
must release?"
All matter stripped down to it's smallest particle - crushed with all
other various atomic material, might become the pure energy you speak
of.  "Matter" would not exist as we know it - only it's atomic
components, crushed together, locked and generating,
building up vast amounts of energy... (pure?)...
and I still maintain - "crush" ALL matter into a singularity, or at
least to a point where further compaction is an impossibility, even by
astronomical measurements, eventually the energy building up would be
so great - eventually it WILL explode outward.(B.B.)

some interesting reading:.....

http://www.siddeutsch.org/index.html.....

a portion of the text from the above site

But much more than sadness should be invoked in the above demise of
neutron motion in a Black Hole: If it is true, then increasing chaos –
called entropy – is finally reversed by a simple mechanical locking-in
of adjacent neutrons so that they cannot vibrate! What happens to the
huge amount of energy that locking-in must release? Since this is a
strange, unknown form of matter, perhaps it is the crucible in which
hydrogen is regenerated.
 If the Big Bang took place “one day” some 14 billion years ago, why
was it a one-time occurrence? Since our present universe will expand
forever (according to Krauss-Starkman), why did the previous universe
collapse into a Big Crunch? What is the justification for cosmic
strings, wormholes, and baby universes? But in cosmology, according to
the QSS model, the future should become the past. The QSS cosmologists
advocate a universe that will eventually contract to yield the
equivalent of a Big Crunch, Big Bang sequence.

(and on expansion and eventual contraction )

      according to Burbidge et al., it will take 36 billion years more
before the “present epoch” reaches the top of the curve. During this
period, newly-created hydrogen will add sufficient mass so that, when
the Universe arrives at the top, it will stop expanding, and start to
contract. This does not answer philosophical questions such as “When
did time begin?,” but at least it creates a Big Bang out of something
plausible.

plus...http://www.amazon.com/review/R15CDMNUQYFENY- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Indian has new theory on Big Bang
17 Apr 2008, 0007 hrs IST,ANI

LONDON: A new controversial analysis by an astronomer of Indian origin
has suggested that the Big Bang might not have come at the beginning
of the Universe, but after a long and slow period of shrinkage.

According to a report, the theory has been put forward by Amit Yadav,
an astronomer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

If this theory holds any ground, it would show that the early universe
did not inflate with the smoothness that many theorists expected. "The
standard, canonical models will be ruled out if this holds," said
Yadav. "The simplicity is gone," he added.

Yadav's result suggests that models of inflation - a furious
hyperexpansion in the instant after the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years
ago - have to be much more complicated than previously thought, or
else that inflation never occurred at all and that the Big Bang came
after a period of contraction.

"If the result sticks, it would be the first time that one of the
predictions of simple inflation failed. And it could also lead to a
radical reinterpretation of what the Big Bang was and whether it
marked the universe's beginning,"he said.

Standard, simple inflation – needed to achieve a flat, smooth universe
- holds that, just after the Big Bang, a uniform negative
gravitational field drove a brief period of accelerated expansion.

Then the field died out, creating the matter and energy known in the
universe today and leaving an afterglow of microwave radiation just a
few degrees above absolute zero. If simple inflation theory is right,
this imprint should be almost, but not quite, perfectly gaussian - a
pattern with smooth-looking noise.

The analysis of Yadav and adviser Benjamin Wandelt showed that the CMB
map was not gaussian with a certainty of 99.5%.