The Big Bang never happened - and there might be traces of an earlier universe

[Buster's Uncle]

The Big Bang never happened - and there might be traces of an earlier universe, scientist claims
Yahoo News UK
Rob Waugh  •November 28, 2017






For nearly half a century, the Big Bang theory has been accepted by many as the best explanation for how the universe began.

But what if it was wrong – and the universe’s current expansion was actually preceded by an earlier phase, and there are still traces of that ‘previous’ universe?

Brazilian physicist Juliano Cesar Silva Neves of the University of Campinas says, ‘I believe the Big Bang never happened.’

The Big Bang Theory has its origins in the late 1920s when US astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that almost all galaxies are moving away from each other at ever-faster velocities.

But Neves believes in ‘bouncing cosmology’ – where the universe contracts in a Big Crunch, giving way to an eternal succession of universes.

During the ‘Crunch’ the universe contracts to extreme conditions of density and temperature – then expands again.

Neves believes there might be traces of previous universes still visible today.

Neves says that scientists need to ‘look for traces of the events in a contraction phase that may have remained in the ongoing expansion phase.

‘What traces? The candidates include remnants of black holes from a previous phase of universal contraction that may have survived the bounce.’

ches suggested deliberate action was behind it.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/big-bang-never-happened-might-traces-earlier-universe-scientist-claims-103343290.html


...How does one go about believing in the Big Crunch but not the Big Bang?  Seems implicit...

[Geo]

Remnant of a black hole? What's that supposed to be? Dark matter or somesuch?

[Lorizael]

...How does one go about believing in the Big Crunch but not the Big Bang?  Seems implicit...

Yeah, just sounds like someone trying to make headlines. Eternal bouncing is not a new idea. Looks like he's just saying "there could be evidence," which, sure, I guess. But maybe give some reasons or specifics?

[Buster's Uncle]

I'd just chalk it down to incompetent science writing -nothing rare about that- except Neves is quoted.

Somebody's been redefining terms, and one assumes the writer didn't get that, I guess...