PMSL, you claimed there were no mathematical models to support the theory, I pointed you towards them
Okey dokey, let's have a look at these "mathematical models in support of the Big Bounce"
This is an article about a paper published 10 years ago and not an actual paper. However within the referenced 10 year old paper is an attempt to take the ideas quantum loop gravity and join them into a time where spacetime was smooth, in what they termed quantum loop cosmology. The problem here is that they aren't formulating a mathematical model in support of "the Bounce" they are literally just applying QLG equations onto the larger scales. The Big Bounce is something built on top of the results of these equations.
So to simple they have taken quantum loop gravity, an idea that has little evidential support, and then applied the same ideas to the larger scales. That's what this paper is. The Big Bounce is something that takes this paper and sits around talking about interesting conclusions it might draw if a bunch of things that have no support were true. You've confused "an idea existing" and "an idea having any real support". I've been wanting to say this for a while too but never get down into the science but Roger Penrose doesn't support the Big Bounce idea and his idea of a conformal cyclic models are related but not the same. Oh, and not evidentially supported either.
- Jump up ^ Kragh, Helge (1996). Cosmology. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00546-X.
This is a cosmology book for the layman and not a scientific paper.
- Jump up ^ Overduin, James; Hans-Joachim Blome; Josef Hoell (June 2007). "Wolfgang Priester: from the big bounce to the Λ-dominated universe". Naturwissenschaften 94 (6): 417–429. arXiv:astro-ph/0608644. Bibcode:2007NW.....94..417O. doi:10.1007/s00114-006-0187-x.
This is a biographical account of a scientist and not a scientific paper.
- Jump up ^ Bojowald, Martin (2007). "What happened before the Big Bang?". Nature Physics 3 (8): 523–525. Bibcode:2007NatPh...3..523B. doi:10.1038/nphys654.
This is a letter written to Nature magazine in which a Professor attempts to look at Quantum Loop Gravity over isotropic models then literally says that his answers are practically impossible.
- Jump up ^ Ashtekar, Abhay; Corichi, Alejandro; Singh, Parampreet (2008). "Robustness of key features of loop quantum cosmology". Physical Review D 77 (2): 024046. arXiv:0710.3565. Bibcode:2008PhRvD..77b4046A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.024046.
This is an analysis paper by the same 2 of the 3 guys who wrote the above suggesting different directions that their idea might go in. It is also not a proper mathematical model that ties in Quantum Loop Gravity and doesn't adequately dismiss Wheeler DeWitt theory. We'll come back to all this stuff later.
That's a Guardian article and not a scientific paper.
Despite it's title, and I'm definitely conceding that I may be misunderstanding this here as that is pretty dense and complicated, this seems to be talking about a specific idea about how the twisting of matter added to extremely high temperatures during a "collapsing state" could theoretically bounce back instead of inflation. Though I don't understand all of the maths behind this one, it still isn't a mathematical model for the Big Bounce as it doesn't actually show, predict or even attempt to explain how the Universe can reach a collapsing state nor does it adequately dismiss inflation.
This is a paper that basically says "right, forget all that other stuff but if we presumed this happened what would it look like?"
None of these are mathematical models to support the Big Bounce theory, they are generally thought experiments as papers asking what if this or what if that.
Here's the problems you have here that you don't seem to realise:
- Every single one of these papers and ideas rely on loop quantum gravity. What they didn't know writing in 2006 and the like is that loop quantum gravity is completely dead in the water if the Unrah effect is observed and numerous experiments have already claimed to have done so (though it's still at the "needs more evidence but looking promising" stage)
- None of these account for the fact that inflationary theory has almost perfectly predicted all the observations made by WMAP and the B-mode polarisation in the CMB found by a couple of experiments (though later downgraded for BICEP) and is a hugely better fit.
- All of the above rely on science that cannot be verified so for all intents and purposes may as well be magic.
- Loop quantum cosmology, which is absolutely necessary for the Big Bounce, is not yet even a model. It is not even the beginnings of a model. It is more the idea that perhaps a model might exist and if that model did then this might be some of the things that happen in it. This is ignoring the vast, overwhelming and years long evidence that supports inflation theory.
[/QUOTE]