Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New No-Bang theory posits infinite very cold past

Big Bang Theory/NASA

Like we said, the Big Bang has never been popular in cosmology and is accepted only because the evidence supports it. No-Bang theories are a regular feature of the pop science media.

From ScienceDaily:

Did the universe begin with a hot Big Bang or did it slowly thaw from an extremely cold and almost static state? A physicist has developed a theoretical model that complements the nearly 100-year-old conventional model of cosmic expansion. According to the new theory, the Big Bang did not occur 13.8 billion years ago — instead, the birth of the universe stretched into the infinite past. This view holds that the masses of all particles constantly increase. The scientist explains that instead of expanding, the universe is shrinking over extended periods of time.


Shortly after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. Prof. Wetterich believes, however, that a different “picture” is also possible. If the masses of all elementary particles grow heavier over time and gravitational force weakens, the universe could have also had a very cold, slow start. In that view, the universe always existed and its earliest state was virtually static, with the Big Bang stretching over an infinitely long time in the past. The scientist from the Institute for Theoretical Physics assumes that the earliest “events” that are indirectly observable today came to pass 50 trillion years ago, and not in the billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second after the Big Bang. “There is no longer a singularity in this new picture of the cosmos,” says Prof. Wetterich.

To make it work, he postulates a “cosmon field”:

His theoretical model explains dark energy and the early “inflationary universe” with a single scalar field that changes with time, with all masses increasing with the value of this field. “It’s reminiscent of the Higgs boson recently discovered in Geneva. This elementary particle confirmed the physicists’ assumption that particle masses do indeed depend on field values and are therefore variable,” explains the Heidelberg scientist. In Wetterich’s approach, all masses are proportional to the value of the so-called cosmon field, which increases in the course of cosmological evolution. “The natural conclusion of this model is a picture of a universe that evolved very slowly from an extremely cold state, shrinking over extended periods of time instead of expanding,” explains Prof. Wetterich.

He thinks the Big Bang is still a useful model because it accords with predictions, but his model gets rid of the singularity and the nagging question of what existed before the Big Bang. So he suggests adopting both.

In short, instead of a singularity (which is what the Big Bang necessarily is), we must accept a hypothetical cosmon field. Of course “the nagging question” of what came before the Big Bang can also be addressed by pointing out that we must first determine whether there could be any evidence and how to find it. In the meantime, serious cosmology must be about what happened afterward.

See also: Unpublished Einstein manuscript defended no-Big Bang theory. But he apparently changed his vote later.

Science-Fictions-square.gif The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

Follow UD News at Twitter!

I'm sure the professor has fun trying to explain the red shift---it would either all have to come from the accelerating velocity of magically receding stars (with the Earth as the center), that time is changing from minus infinity to plus infinity asymptotically at both ends, or that light itself is is losing energy with continually decreasing frequency. . . but wait, an infinite amount of time has already passed so light should also be way past infrared. And if the "fabric" of the universe is shrinking, what happens when it all meets together? A big bang, perhaps? Oh, but there can't be a big bang (otherwise we'd have reached it by now), so the universe must be infinite, shrinking asymptotically forward as the temperature is increasing on an asymptotic path going backwards from infinity. Oh, but maybe time is actually moving backwards for everything to make sense in a way. And where does the story of Goldilocks and the three bears come in? LOL -Q Querius
50 trillion years is still an instant compared to eternal / infinity. Instant of Creation still happened per this model. ppolish
Wait a minute, in a recent post by News we read this:
120 computer-generated nonsense papers are being removed from science papers database
Is it possible this NB theory is just one of the 120? please, can someone double check that this was not in the removed list? ;-) Dionisio
Jorge @ 1
The scary part is that people then have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in tuition to learn these excursions into Fantasy Land subsequently labeled as “science”.
Yes, that's one of the negative (measured in $$$) side effects of all the poor pseudo-science hogwash we read out there :( Dionisio
Pretty clever idea... Finally we know what happened! Oh no! Really? are you kidding me? What about the multiverse theories ? does this mean they're abandoning the M-theories? that's not fair... why? because the M-theory didn't help as much as they expected? What else are they going to think of next? Dionisio
Good grief ... they will posit anything - anything - before they will "allow the Divine Foot in the door". The scary part is that people then have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in tuition to learn these excursions into Fantasy Land subsequently labeled as "science". Stay tuned ... something is sure to come along that will top this "cosmon field" gibberish. Jorge

Leave a Reply