The Big Bang Theory was the leading explanation for how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the world as we recognize it began with a small singularity, then extended over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we see today. It might be the most conventional theory of the origin of the universe, but the new analysis suggests the Big Bang theory may have never occurred.
A physicist Juliano César Silva Neves, at the University of Campinas in São Paulo, now proposes that might be wrong, in a paper published in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation.
Scientist Georges Lemaître first laid the groundwork for the Big Bang theory in the 1920s when he suggested an eternally-expanding world. Cosmologist Edwin Hubble’s discovery, proclaimed in 1929, that galaxies are evolving ever far away from one another at faster speed was taken as a critical initial piece of evidence that the cosmos started from a single point.
But Neves’s group offers an alternative description. Challenging the idea that time had a starting, they recommend that the state of extension in the universe came after a state of compression. In other words, rather than coming from a single significant expansion or a bang, the latest paper proposes that a long contraction or crunch preceded that development.
These all put a question that how can you test a theory about what happened billions of years ago? According to Neves, the answer is to look at black holes and other evidence from when the universe may have first created.
Neves told that who knows, there may be remains of black holes in the continuing development that date from the earlier contraction phase and passed whole through the bottleneck of the bounce. In other words, Neves considers that there may be remnants of black holes that predate the contraction-expansion, and they may offer proof to prove it.
This indicates the universe did not experience a violent beginning or end, as explained in the Big Bang and Big Crunch scenarios.