Then Again - There May Have Been No Big Bang

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Then Again - There May Have Been No Big Bang
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

AuthorMessage
Valete

Send message
Joined: 9 Jan 05
Posts: 1033
Credit: 205,988
RAC: 0
Message 1640947 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 21:36:25 UTC

ID: 1640947 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 6745
Credit: 1,084,731
RAC: 547
Message 1640970 - Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 22:46:48 UTC - in response to Message 1640947.  

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

For the numbers:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314009381

CC


Hmmm. Very interesting! Thanks CC :) Will need to read it again when my brain is more brain than shipwreck, but their further exploration of the theory will be extremely intriguing to follow! :)
ID: 1640970 · Report as offensive
Profile LynnProject Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Nov 00
Posts: 11825
Credit: 31,802,595
RAC: 31,238
United States
Message 1641122 - Posted: 13 Feb 2015, 6:51:52 UTC - in response to Message 1640970.  

As the years go by, it seems there is a new piece added to the puzzle, that is the universe.

Thanks CC.
ET Phone Home
ID: 1641122 · Report as offensive
Profile Chris SCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40032
Credit: 34,739,142
RAC: 63,541
United Kingdom
Message 1641146 - Posted: 13 Feb 2015, 8:57:45 UTC
Last modified: 13 Feb 2015, 9:07:00 UTC

I like what I am reading! This is partly agreeing with my own long held theory about the universe. But there are too many "mights" for any conclusions yet. It is as much a theory as mine is, but first time I've found anyone seemingly agreeing with me.

According to new research, there might not have been a big bang. Instead, the universe might have existed forever. The theory was derived from the mathematics of general relativity, and compliment Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

“The Big Ban singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there.” – Ahmed Farag Ali, Benha University, Co-Author of the study. The big bang theory postulates that everything in existence resulted from a single event that launched the creation of the entire universe and that everything in existence today was once part of a single infinitely dense point, also known as the “singularity.”

This is one out of many criticisms regarding the big bang theory. There are many considerations to be pondered. Can something come from nothing? What about quantum mechanics and the possibility that there is no moment of time at which the universe did not exist?

“The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity.
ID: 1641146 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 2848
Credit: 1,215,344
RAC: 206
United States
Message 1642250 - Posted: 15 Feb 2015, 5:30:36 UTC

To me, the probability that they have it right is just as high as all of the other theories. I also believe that it is highly unlikely that anyone is very close to explaining the "BIG" picture regarding the makeup of the universe. I believe it is very likely that what is not known is vastly larger than what is known on this subject. 100 years from now what we currently believe to be true will be looked upon as rubbish.
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1642250 · Report as offensive
Profile Chris SCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40032
Credit: 34,739,142
RAC: 63,541
United Kingdom
Message 1642336 - Posted: 15 Feb 2015, 11:17:59 UTC

As we do looking back to 1915.
ID: 1642336 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 11343
Credit: 4,631,272
RAC: 4,743
United States
Message 1645818 - Posted: 24 Feb 2015, 1:33:54 UTC - in response to Message 1641146.  

I like what I am reading! This is partly agreeing with my own long held theory about the universe. But there are too many "mights" for any conclusions yet. It is as much a theory as mine is, but first time I've found anyone seemingly agreeing with me.


So, you've been forming hypotheses, running experiments, collecting and analyzing data, revising your theory as you go?

Or did you mean "hunch"?
Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.
ID: 1645818 · Report as offensive
Profile Chris SCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40032
Credit: 34,739,142
RAC: 63,541
United Kingdom
Message 1645929 - Posted: 24 Feb 2015, 9:45:01 UTC

Or did you mean "hunch"?

OK I will accept that "description".

Hunch - a feeling or guess based on intuition rather than fact.

In which case I wonder how many of these other pronouncements are merely good guesswork and hunches.

"latest research suggests ..."

"Recent findings indicate ...."

None of the above cut any ice with me, it's the sort of tabloid headline you get from pseudo sci fi journals like the Huff. The day I see something like

"The most recent peer reviewed research with repeatable results has proven beyond all doubt that ...."

Then I will sit up and take notice.
ID: 1645929 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 33496
Credit: 12,337,260
RAC: 10,621
Belgium
Message 1647227 - Posted: 27 Feb 2015, 11:19:14 UTC

*looking at title of thread* Oh pleeeze, scientists should discover new things instead of trying to refute old discoveries all the time...
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1647227 · Report as offensive
Profile Chris SCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40032
Credit: 34,739,142
RAC: 63,541
United Kingdom
Message 1647264 - Posted: 27 Feb 2015, 13:26:04 UTC

*looking at title of thread*

Exactly. There may have been "A" big bang, there wasn't THE big bang!
ID: 1647264 · Report as offensive
Profile tullioProject Donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 6296
Credit: 1,675,461
RAC: 1,272
Italy
Message 1647290 - Posted: 27 Feb 2015, 14:45:07 UTC

The most important evidence in favor of a Big Bang is the Cosmic Microwave Background, discovered by two telecommunication engineers, A.A.Penzias and R.W. Wilson (not astronomers) at the Bell Laboratories in 1964.It had been predicted by Leo Szilard in the Thirties but never measured by astronomers.
Tullio
ID: 1647290 · Report as offensive
Darth Beaver
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 6606
Credit: 19,551,276
RAC: 5,292
Australia
Message 1647294 - Posted: 27 Feb 2015, 14:54:54 UTC

One of the problems of understanding the Bing Bang , Multiverses , Laws of quantum Machanices is there one in the same theory .

Everything has all ways been here and all ways will , and has happened before when you add time into it

MMM I thought Gravitons where real and not still theoretical ! Makes me wonder if they are real can we manipulate them AKA: antigrav , new space engines ?

ID: 1647294 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 33496
Credit: 12,337,260
RAC: 10,621
Belgium
Message 1647322 - Posted: 27 Feb 2015, 16:08:49 UTC - in response to Message 1647290.  

The most important evidence in favor of a Big Bang is the Cosmic Microwave Background, discovered by two telecommunication engineers, A.A.Penzias and R.W. Wilson (not astronomers) at the Bell Laboratories in 1964.It had been predicted by Leo Szilard in the Thirties but never measured by astronomers.
Tullio


+1
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1647322 · Report as offensive
Profile Chris SCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40032
Credit: 34,739,142
RAC: 63,541
United Kingdom
Message 1647332 - Posted: 27 Feb 2015, 16:55:47 UTC

The most important evidence in favor of a Big Bang is the Cosmic Microwave Background, discovered by two telecommunication engineers, A.A.Penzias and R.W. Wilson (not astronomers) at the Bell Laboratories in 1964.It had been predicted by Leo Szilard in the Thirties but never measured by astronomers.

Exactly, we are living in the aftermath of a big bang, there has never ever been any argumenta bout that! But it is our own LOCAL big bang, which only affects our local bit of the entire universe.

Glenn has got the basic idea

Everything has all ways been here and all ways will , and has happened before when you add time into it


In theory an anti-graviton would be interesting? But you know physicists, it would have to have a flavour. Strawberry, vanilla, chocolate? Hang on that's a bit of a Neapolitan idea :-)
ID: 1647332 · Report as offensive
Profile tullioProject Donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 6296
Credit: 1,675,461
RAC: 1,272
Italy
Message 1647351 - Posted: 27 Feb 2015, 17:38:10 UTC - in response to Message 1647332.  

The graviton is not a particle, but a force carrier, like the photon, the W and Z intermediate vector bosons and the Higgs boson, so it has no antiparticle.
Our Le Scienze magazine, the Italian version of Scientific American, has an article which deals not only with the Higgs boson but also with
the Majorana heavy neutrinos, which should be their own antiparticles and maybe solve the dark matter mystery.
I've taken five weeks of lessons on the Higgs field from Edinburgh University, also given by Peter Higgs and I am beginning to understand the physics behind the spontaneous symmetry breaking (J.Goldstone, 1961, forgotten by the Nobel committee) which produces the massive Higgs boson (125 GeV).
Next week they shall cover the experiments done at LHC. I should be in a better condition to understand, since I am simulating them in vLHC@home and Atlas@home.
Tullio
ID: 1647351 · Report as offensive
Profile Chris SCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40032
Credit: 34,739,142
RAC: 63,541
United Kingdom
Message 1647360 - Posted: 27 Feb 2015, 17:49:43 UTC

The graviton is not a particle, but a force carrier, like the photon, the W and Z intermediate vector bosons and the Higgs boson, so it has no antiparticle.

Damn, back to the drawing board.
ID: 1647360 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 33496
Credit: 12,337,260
RAC: 10,621
Belgium
Message 1647411 - Posted: 27 Feb 2015, 19:36:55 UTC - in response to Message 1647360.  

The graviton is not a particle, but a force carrier, like the photon, the W and Z intermediate vector bosons and the Higgs boson, so it has no antiparticle.

Damn, back to the drawing board.

:))))))))))))))))))))
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1647411 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 2257
Credit: 1,928,180
RAC: 160
Message 1647663 - Posted: 28 Feb 2015, 6:57:26 UTC
Last modified: 28 Feb 2015, 7:05:41 UTC

In my own view, you should not be making the assumption about a possible divine entity being the force behind our current knowledge and creation.

You do not necessarily have to be a theoretical physicist all the time in order to try explaining all the details either.

Microcosmos is assumed to be more complicated than macrocosmos because of the smaller dimensions and at the speed certain things are assumed to be happening.

We assume the existence of the laws of gravity and our notion of the of time as being fundamental principles of nature, but still most things when it comes to the laws of gravity are being readily explained using the equations given by Isaac Newton.

We take it for granted that the universe was created from nothing and that space is a three-dimensional volume which is expanding forever, possibly into oblivion because of the initial exposion, called the Big Bang, which created our existence.

Whether the Big Bang was an explosion, or perhaps something else, we probably never will be able to know with certainty.

Because certain things came along as a result of this event, we happen to be here as well, being able to observe and learn from what is happening. Definitely we know what may have happened in the past, but we will never know what future may bring when it comes to events which may happen.

If you happen to be religious, there may be a possibility that you may be a believer. If so, you are supposed to believe in a divine entity being the reason for the creation of the universe. Still, this place is somewhere which has room for both the beauty and the beast. The first is supposed to be God and the second is supposed to be the Devil.

Creation and destruction has always been existing side by side. When something happens and you are not a believer, you assume that what is happening is because of the laws of nature as they are supposed to be.

Still, we end up being a witness to this processs as it is happening and being able both to learn and make our lessons for those events which supposedly happens all the time.
ID: 1647663 · Report as offensive
KLiKProject Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 14
Posts: 1289
Credit: 9,075,328
RAC: 17,385
Croatia
Message 1648419 - Posted: 2 Mar 2015, 7:29:18 UTC - in response to Message 1647290.  

The most important evidence in favor of a Big Bang is the Cosmic Microwave Background, discovered by two telecommunication engineers, A.A.Penzias and R.W. Wilson (not astronomers) at the Bell Laboratories in 1964.It had been predicted by Leo Szilard in the Thirties but never measured by astronomers.
Tullio

And also the least favorable, 'cause image of Microwave Background image taken by Planck Survayor does not fit Big bang teory!

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU
ID: 1648419 · Report as offensive
Profile Chris SCrowdfunding Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40032
Credit: 34,739,142
RAC: 63,541
United Kingdom
Message 1648456 - Posted: 2 Mar 2015, 10:19:22 UTC

In my own view, you should not be making the assumption about a possible divine entity being the force behind our current knowledge and creation.

+1

You do not necessarily have to be a theoretical physicist all the time in order to try explaining all the details either.

+1

but still most things when it comes to the laws of gravity are being readily explained using the equations given by Isaac Newton.

+1

Oi stop this, it is most unsettling!

If you happen to be religious, there may be a possibility that you may be a believer.

No s##t Sherlock!

Definitely we know what may have happened in the past, but we will never know what future may bring when it comes to events which may happen.

That's better, phew you had me worried for a minute back there :-)
ID: 1648456 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Then Again - There May Have Been No Big Bang


 
©2017 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.