Big Bang Theory, I propose the Multiple Bang Theory. Any thoughts from physicists?

Question

I personally prefer what I have coined the "Multiple Bang Theory"

A piece of my own work. As follows -

Matter, planets etc, have gravity.

They are attracted to each other.

They crash and merge into a larger body.

Eventually the mass of this conglomerate of combined matter reaches a critical mass where it's gravity is so great that is becomes a black hole.

Black holes suck together and combine as matter previously (in addition to still sucking in regular matter)

Eventually a critical mass is reached again and they blow apart, a "little bang" if you wish to call it such.

and the cycle continues.

Here a little bang

there some scattering matter

somewhere else some congealing matter.

Always in perpetuity, all happening at once in different places.

No end

No beginning.

What is seen as THE Big Bang is merely the observable effects of one of the endless bangs.

I'm not saying this is how it is. It is merely a theory of mine.

Has this been previously proposed?

Bear in mind, I'm no physicist!!!

Answer 1

this is the same answer I posted in physics section:

It is a reasonable evident that we do detected some objects flying outward and some flying toward us (those red shift and blue shift), and they`re all pointing to the same source point. So, this kind of disproof multiple bangs theory. Otherwise, as Barto said, we should expect something flying in all directions if multiple bangs happen.

PS. comso is correct, we do need "brainstroming" before we step into the formal scientific process.  and it's ok to think and evaluate of all sort of possiblities, that's science too.

Answer 2

Yes, multiple Big Bangs are pretty much the standard nowdays in cosmological speculation.  If you can have one Big Bang, why not many?  If there are lots of Big Bangs, what is the physically allowable range of properties of the resultant Universes?  How likely is our Big Bang, in comparison to all the other possible ways that a Big Bang could be?  Does that tell us anything about the fundamental properties of physics in "our" Universe, such as the mass of the electron?  What fraction of possible Big Bangs are compatible with intelligent life, and can therefore be observed?  What happens to Big Bangs that are not compatible with intelligent life, and therefore cannot be observed?

By the way, it's probably not necessary to supply a bunch of matter in a precursor Universe in order to start a Big Bang---the total energy (both positive and negative) involved in a Bang may be zero.

P.S. Hey Brant --- there's nothing wrong with speculation, as long as you take it for what it is.  That in no way makes it a "religion".  (Geez, what an insult.)

There have been a few papers about multiple Big Bangs where testable consequences have been put forward.  For example, the hypothesis of multiple big bangs (with a full range of logically possible values for the properties of particles) plus selection by the anthropic principle has been used to calculate the masses of as-yet unobserved particles (such as the supersymmetric particles).  So it's not totally B.S.

Answer 3

Blackholes are only formed when a star with many solar masses collapses on itself creating a singularity.  

The reason a black hole is formed, is because the fusion in the star can no longer go on; all the hydrogen has been used and is now helium (the process continues after helium is used up making the star weaker and weaker).

In other words, fusion is responsible for keeping the star from collapsing on itself; the excerted force (fusion) pushing against the intense amount gravity placed on the star, since it's so big.

There's no way a conglomerate of mass can collapse on itself. There probably isn't enough material/debris around to collect a conglomerate that huge.

The multiple big bang theory has been proposed, but proposed in a different manner.

--- response---

Not the sun (our star, call the sun), but a star. Our sun is way to little to eventually be a black hole; it's demise is a white dwarf to be left to slowly burn out. A star, like Antares, will become a black hole, it's 700 times bigger than our sun (many solar masses).

A conglomerate, a chuck of rock that's growing and growing, will only grow by chance. In other words, direct hits with asteroids and comets.

Gravity plays a huge role in our universe, and there are many objects in the universe that use gravity to attract material. So, if a planet, that's growing and growing is part of a star system, chances are... the material in the system will orbit the star before it's attracted to the planet. Like I said, the only way for a planet to keep growing in mass, is direct hits with asteroids or comets orbiting the host star.

I don't mean to be so technical, I just want you to be informed.

The reason I became so interested in astronomy was because of comet holmes this past fall, then I became obsessed with the big bang theory.

Answer 4

Hey, your theory is as valid as the big bang theory and the creationism theory (God created the universe in 6 days).. in the end they are all theories..

Answer 5

Big bang?! Gimme a break! If that happened then we would have many more cases of "big bangs" all around the earth/universe. Have there been any? Nope. Beside could all this complex world come about by random chance? No way.

Answer 6

If multiple bangs have become the standard opinion, as cosmo says, then astrophysics and cosmology have become more of a religion than a science.  There are all sorts of fanciful notions out there and none of them pass scientific muster.  They get people noticed and starry-eyed non-scientific types eat it up.  If the nature of a claim is such that it cannot possibly be verified or refuted, it is not science.  It is idle, undisciplined speculation.

There is no evidence to support proposals like yours.  Anybody can play the "what if" game.  It's appropraite at a party where people have had a few drinks.  Some write books about this stuff, but if there is no supporting evidence, no phenomenon which could be better explained by it, and no possible means of investigation, then it simply isn't science and never will be.  It is what some people call mental masturbation.  And we all know that never produces offspring and it shouldn't be done in public.

Answer 7

The main problem I would have with your hypothesis is the part where black holes explode.

Black holes simply dont explode, regardless of how massive they are. The simple reason for this is that the escape velocity for any black hole is the speed of light (otherwise it wouldnt be black would it). In order for a black hole to actually explode, the bits of the blackhole would have to move outwards at speeds greater than the speed of light, which is pysically impossible.

Its good that youre thinking.

Hope this helped!