Alternatives to the Big Bang theory

Steady-state theory

This theory was proposed in 1948, it proposes that the universe is expanding; however, the galaxies are retreating from one another. That as these galaxies move away from one another new matter comes into being and fills in the void.

Problems with this theory

It contradicts the first law of thermodynamics.
There is no empirical evidence that supports it.

The oscillating model of the universe

In this video Jana does a great job of explaining the oscillating model, she also has the intellectual honesty of telling us “It’s possible that the universe was really a bounce from a previous history …” She also states that “the math we’re doing on pen and paper isn’t going to be the whole story”. I’m not sure if she is unaware of the results from the five different laboratories listed below or she is choosing to ignore there math.

This theory suggests that the universe has been expanding and contracting over and over in an infinite cycle. This model was popular in the 60s, especially with Russian scientists and is still popular with some scientists today.

Problems with this theory

It contradicts the known laws of physics.

Another problem with this theory is that for the universe to re-expand it would have to contract at a speed with increasing acceleration, enough so to start the whole process again. Mathematical estimates show that the universe doesn’t have near enough mass to cause the universe to contract.

Tests have been completed by five different laboratories in the 90s.  There calculations all came to the conclusion that there was a 95% certainty that the universe will not contract, but will continue to expand forever. These texts actually concluded that the universe is actually increasing in speed as it expands.

Work completed by Hocking’s and Penrose has shown that the universe is controlled by general relativity. That even if this theory was true you still have to deal with entropy, the effect of each cycle getting bigger and bigger. If this is true you can naturally conclude that each previous cycle was smaller and smaller. This would still lead to a singularity.

Chaotic Inflation Theory

Andrei Linde, speculated that there is a possibly the universe never stops expanding. He speculated that the universe may be like a balloon, and when it reaches a certain point, inflation would be spawned off of it. That as the universe expands; something would expand off of that. This inflation would create more inflation and this would go on and on forever. The question that this premise raises is, if it can go on forever into the future, could have gone on forever in the past?

 Problems with Theory

In 1994 two prominent physicists showed that this was not possible. Their conclusion showed that there has to be a beginning point, even in an indefinite universe. After looking at their data, even Linde admitted they were correct.

Hawkins Challenge

William Hawking wrote in his book A Brief History of Time, he proposed that universe may not have a beginning point in time. To understand his premise imagine an empty ice cream cone (the ones that have a point).  In this model the point is the beginning of the universe.  This model represents the Big Band Model.

In Hocking’s model the end of the cone doesn’t come to a point, but is rounded off. In his model there is no singularity, The example given is that if you were going back in time as you reached the bottom of the cone you would find yourself actually moving forward in time.  Another way to look at it is imagine you were walking toward the North Pole.  As you crossed the Pole you would suddenly find yourself not going north but indeed south. That’s the basic idea behind Hawkins challenge.

Problems with This Theory

The problem with Hawkins model is that in order to get the rounded end in his cone model you need to use imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers are the multiples of the square root of -1. They are fine to use in mathematics, because the serve as a way to artificially get from A to B. At some point they have to be converted back into real numbers. Hawkins refused to do this. If these imaginary numbers are converted back to real numbers the rounded end of Hawking’s model disappears, and the point of the cone reappears. The singularity is back.