What if the "Big Bang" was not the Beginning Point of our Observable Universe?

Rupak Bhattacharya; Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya; Upasana Bhattacharya; Ritwik Bhattacharya; Aiyshi Mukherjee; Rupsha Bhattacharya; Debasish Mukherjee; Dalia Mukherjee; Hindol Banerjee

Abstract

The Big Bounce theory envisions the Big Bang as the start of a period of expansion followed by a period of contraction. According to this viewpoint, there was a Big Crunch (another singularity) followed by a Big Bang, or, more simply, a Big Bounce. This implies that we could be at any point in an infinite series of universes, or that the current universe is the very first interaction. But even so, if the condition of the interval phase "among bounces," considered the " primeval atom hypothesis," is properly considered, such identifier may be meaningless because that condition could represent a singularity in time at each instance, if such perpetual return was absolute and undefinable. The concept of the Big Bounce envisions the Big Bang as the beginning of a period of expansion that is followed by a period of contraction. In this view, one could talk of a Big Crunch (another singularity) followed by a Big Bang, or more simply, a Big Bounce. This suggests that we could be living at any point in an infinite sequence of universes, or conversely the current universe could be the very first interaction. The basic idea behind the quantum theory of a Big Bounce is that as density approaches infinity, the quantum foam's behavior changes. All of the so-called fundamental physical constants, including the speed of light in a vacuum, do not have to remain constant during a Big Crunch, especially in time intervals smaller than those in which measurement may never be possible (one unit of Planck time, roughly 10*43 seconds) spanning or bracketing the point of inflection

Abstract

Keywords