1

There is a theory that the big bang’s blast caused an outward push, a kind of reverse gravity if you will, of our universe and everything within it.

My question is how could this have happened? If it really is a kind of reverse gravitational push, this implies something we cant quite comprehend with our minds. Because general relativity proves that gravity is caused by heavy massive objects pulling and curving space time around it causing other objects to roll along it’s valley.

So an outward gravitational push would imply that maybe because of the huge energy blast of the big bang the object causing it would become in a negative energy state causing it, according to E=mc2, to have a negative mass and causing this object to make a kind of mountain in 2 dimensional space time setting our universe in motion rolling downwards this hill. And while rolling kind of unfolding in our current universe. Abd so explaining the accelerating expansion of our universe.

Can this be a possibility or am i suggesting something radical here?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Daan Rijks
  • 179
  • "maybe because of the huge energy blast of the big bang the object causing it" What object are you talking about? The Big Bang wasn't caused by an object: the Big Bang involved the whole universe, not some object doing something to everything else. – PM 2Ring Feb 12 '21 at 12:19
  • How would you know if that is true? Talking about the exact moment of the big bang or the moments before, is all very uncertain. The only thing we can now do is speculate to what might have caused the “bang”. Why couldn’t it be a massive body, imploding and giving rise to our current universe? – Daan Rijks Feb 12 '21 at 12:24
  • Ok, but that's quite a different scenario to the standard Big Bang theory, which posits a very symmetrical process. See https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/136860/ – PM 2Ring Feb 12 '21 at 12:35
  • I'm not going to pretend I understand it, but there is talk about the big bang being caused by colliding branes and other very speculative theories. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239 –  Feb 12 '21 at 22:25

1 Answers1

-1

The big bang is not "inverse gravity." It is gravity as GR explains gravity (it's not a force, it's curved spacetime, etc).

Your intuitive picture of GR is not exactly right. To really understand GR you must look at the actual equations and not popular analogies.

The possibility of the big bang was in Einstein's field equations from the beginning. He introduced the cosmological constant to avoid such a thing. When Hubble found that the universe was expanding, the cosmological constant was taken to be 0. Now, we know the expansion is accelerating and the cosmological constant is not exactly 0.

Susskind. Lectures on Cosmology.

Tegmark. Lectures on Cosmology.

Because general relativity proves that gravity is caused by heavy massive objects pulling and curving space time around it causing other objects to roll along it’s valley.

GR also says that very small amounts of mass/energy density also have important big cumulative effects. The cosmological constant, for example.

Can this be a possibility or am i suggesting something radical here?

It seems like you're trying to explain something that is already explained by GR. But I can't follow what you're saying. If you're trying to explain why the big bang happened then I can't comment on that.

  • Well, i’m actually saying something rather strange. Maybe my picture of GR isn’t quite right and I should go and improve that. But I think what i’m saying can be a possibility, I know it is a different view of the Big Bang and what it might have set in motion. Because from what I understand, the Big Bang was this small packet of enormous energy exploding and giving rise to our universe, and because of this enormous blast pushing everything in motion outward. But I am suggesting that the bang was so big that it caused spacetime around it to curve inside-out and in stead of attracting, repelling – Daan Rijks Feb 13 '21 at 10:13
  • That's an interesting idea. It's possible, but you have to somehow translate that idea into equations. But, I believe, what you're calling the repelling part is already explained in terms if GR. So this would be an alternative to theory to GR. And GR is well accepted. Consider reading: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html –  Feb 13 '21 at 18:44
  • If you aren't familiar with GR and Cosmology, they are relatively easy subjects to learn. All you need is a little calculus. See Lillian Liber's book on Einstein gravity. Susskinds Theoretical Minimum Classical Mechanics on youtube and his book on the same. He also has lectures on GR and cosmology. And the lectures by Max Tegmark on cosmology on youtube. –  Feb 13 '21 at 18:48