The Big Bounce offers a fascinating alternative to the Big Bang. Bouncers say the Big Bang relies on an idea that is contrived and limits scientific inquiry. Could the universe have bounced into and out of a single-particle singularity?
Many physicists study the Big Bang as a beginning that came from oblivion. But some wonder if that was just an inflection point—i.e., if the universe shrank all the way down to nothing, then exploded out again like a Christmas cracker.
🌌You love badass space stuff. So do we. Let’s explore the universe together.
These scientists study the theory of the Big Bounce, and they say their account of the beginning of our universe could do a better job putting all the facts together.
Cosmology is the overarching field that studies what, and how, the universe is. That means carefully observing the universe today and rewinding it billions and billions of years. Both the Big Bang and the Big Bounce use the foundational idea of Hubble’s Law and more to agree that today’s universe is rapidly expanding. The key difference between the two theories lies in what came before, and the difference is manifested in each theory’s consequences.
New Theory Casually Upends Space and Time
In the Big Bounce theory, the universe is expanding and contracting, seesawing back and forth in a massively big-picture timeline. Some bouncers believe this happened just once, while others believe a cyclical bouncing is what makes our universe.
And while the Big Bounce still requires large leaps that must be explained with generous scientific handwaving, proponents say it’s a lot less than with a model of the Big Bang they say is fatally flawed.
This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may be able to find the same
This post was originally published by Popular Mechanics on . Please visit the original post to read the complete article.
