Jump to content


Click to shop at Royal Queen Seeds
Photo
- - - - -

Theory Predicts Universe May Have Existed Forever




  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Sapphire Soul

Sapphire Soul

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,215 posts

Posted November 25 2016 - 03:09 AM

http://3tags.org/art...as-no-beginning
 

 

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a “Big Bang” did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt said.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

 

 

If there was no Big Bang, at least there will be no Big Crunch. I don't know which is the more mind-boggling, the idea of an infinitely small singularity, or the infinity of Space-Time.


  • Mountain Valley Wolf likes this

gallery_115237_6097_21333.jpg

 

Sun so bright that I'm nearly blind

 

Spiritualized


#2 penguinsfan13

penguinsfan13

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,530 posts

Posted November 25 2016 - 03:15 AM

No surprise really.
Something has had to be there before so there is always something.

doo be doo be doo, beware of the penguins.


#3 guerillabedlam

guerillabedlam

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,634 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted November 25 2016 - 03:27 AM

I'm pretty sure this work has been posted before, it's interesting but as far as I can understand it nothing really substantial can be verified from this within our lifetimes because...

 


New gravity particle

In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. 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.

 

 

it relies on gravitons, which we don't have the technology to detect.


oYIBnFT.png

 


#4 Guest_xenxan

Guest_xenxan
  • Guests

Posted November 25 2016 - 03:39 AM

How can we be sure the Universe has ever existed? It is a question that can never be answered but is intriguing to theorize about.


  • Perfection of Disorder likes this

#5 Asmo

Asmo

    Slo motion rider

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 33,625 posts
  • LocationThe pulsing cavern

Posted November 25 2016 - 07:01 AM

How can we be sure the Universe has ever existed? It is a question that can never be answered but is intriguing to theorize about.


I think, therefore I am. If that is so why wouldn't the universe exist. Albeit most likely in a different form than we perceive it.

Posted Image


#6 Perfection of Disorder

Perfection of Disorder

    Paradoxically Spontaneous

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 341 posts
  • LocationIn the midst of knowing the unknowable

Posted November 25 2016 - 07:03 AM

I think, therefore I am. If that is so why wouldn't the universe exist. Albeit most likely in a different form than we perceive it.

Unless the universe comes into existence as we perceive it.
  • Asmo likes this
DISCLAIMER......Please hold on......my understanding is my own and yours is yours. We have already agreed to disagree and disagreed to agree. Your personal ideology is no more good or bad than mine, etc.......... Love,Hate,War & Peace.........END DISCLAIMER

#7 guerillabedlam

guerillabedlam

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,634 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted November 25 2016 - 07:27 AM

I think, therefore I am. If that is so why wouldn't the universe exist. Albeit most likely in a different form than we perceive it.


Descartes arrived at that phrase from skepticism. From there in his Meditations, he reels it back in and suggests the external world exists and the like, but it laid the groundwork for solipsism, which in some variations doesn't believe in, or believe we can know an external world.


I think that's better relegated for the philosophy section but as I've said previously, it seems Quantum Mechanics is verging into the realm of the Philosophical.

* I hope I'm not quoting a terrorist...
  • Asmo likes this

oYIBnFT.png

 


#8 Wu Li Heron

Wu Li Heron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationAnother Universe

Posted November 25 2016 - 07:51 AM

An infinity here, an infinity there, and pretty soon you're talking Big Science! The paradox of infinity is it appears to arise within a singularity inspiring mathematicians and physicists alike to play with their mathematics. For example, String theory keeps spitting out new theories that suggest an astronomically greater number of theories can explain everything all that much more beautifully. Attempting to make any kind of ultimate sense out of reality is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. As Einstein said, "Your theory is crazy, but the question is whether its crazy enough." A recent examination of inflation indicated that within a few years we may be able to tell if the Big Bang was faster than light which would mean there is just no way to tell if the chicken came before the egg.


Edited by Wu Li Heron, November 25 2016 - 07:56 AM.


#9 Sapphire Soul

Sapphire Soul

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,215 posts

Posted November 25 2016 - 08:21 AM

A recent examination of inflation indicated that within a few years we may be able to tell if the Big Bang was faster than light which would mean there is just no way to tell if the chicken came before the egg.

 

Can you expand (no pun intended) on what the consequences of inflation occuring faster than light would be? I have not heard about that theory.


gallery_115237_6097_21333.jpg

 

Sun so bright that I'm nearly blind

 

Spiritualized


#10 Asmo

Asmo

    Slo motion rider

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 33,625 posts
  • LocationThe pulsing cavern

Posted November 25 2016 - 08:23 AM

Can you expand (no pun intended)


:D

Posted Image


#11 NoxiousGas

NoxiousGas

    Old Fart

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,130 posts
  • LocationIn the bowels of all mankind

Posted November 25 2016 - 08:30 AM

Can you expand (no pun intended) on what the consequences of inflation occuring faster than light would be? I have not heard about that theory.

 

considering the speed of light is the metric by which we determine the size/age of the universe, it could have big implications, such as is the universe actually as old as we calculate?


  • Logan 5 and Perfection of Disorder like this
"Do the walls close in and suffocate ya,
you ain't got no friends and all the others they hate ya,
does the life you been leading gotta go?"

"get your shoes and socks on people,
it's right around the corner"

"the poodle bi-i-ites,
the poodle chews it"

#12 Perfection of Disorder

Perfection of Disorder

    Paradoxically Spontaneous

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 341 posts
  • LocationIn the midst of knowing the unknowable

Posted November 25 2016 - 09:17 AM

Not to go overly philosophical in a science zone but are not the determinations of contexts such as time, limit, delimit, singular, plural, etc just the filling in our Thanksgiving pie of conceptual existence? The belief that we have a monopoly on the context of existence is a wee bit egotistical. Now don't misunderstand I fully acknowledge the filling, it looks disturbingly beautiful and tastes revoltingly palatable but it is the filling we determined after all. Oh yes the universe may be limitless but are we? What certain existence is there? When do we acknowledge the concept of too good to be true?


DISCLAIMER......Please hold on......my understanding is my own and yours is yours. We have already agreed to disagree and disagreed to agree. Your personal ideology is no more good or bad than mine, etc.......... Love,Hate,War & Peace.........END DISCLAIMER

#13 Vanilla Gorilla

Vanilla Gorilla

    Go Ape

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,305 posts
  • LocationDown Under

Posted November 25 2016 - 09:29 AM

They still dont know shit

 

I wanna see the headline

 

 

"Cosmologists from Stanford admit, "Meh, we are just fucking guessing""



#14 Wu Li Heron

Wu Li Heron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationAnother Universe

Posted November 25 2016 - 10:28 AM

Can you expand (no pun intended) on what the consequences of inflation occuring faster than light would be? I have not heard about that theory.

 

It would mean that inflationary theory has to be replaced with something else along the lines of a systems logic that replaces all the traditional infinities with a recursion in the law of identity. When you can no longer identify that you have identified nothing you have personal problems to deal with and for over a century now quantum mechanics has suggested that we have all just been making it all up as we go along. My own belief is its indicative of a looming theory of everything and nothing and means that everything that exists revolves around what doesn't exist or what can also be described as bullshit or what's missing from this picture.


Edited by Wu Li Heron, November 25 2016 - 10:30 AM.


#15 MeAgain

MeAgain

    Dazed and Confused

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,653 posts
  • LocationNutopia

Posted November 25 2016 - 11:34 AM


  • SoftKiss likes this

HYZx5b8.gif

 

"Acclinis Falsis Animus Meliora Recusat"

(A mind that is charmed by false appearances refuses better things.)

~ Horace

 

 


#16 neonspectraltoast

neonspectraltoast

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts

Posted November 25 2016 - 11:58 AM

I don't see how this really resolves the singularity, if a singularity can equally explain how the universe came to be.  Yes, there is a point in the Big Bang theory in which the laws of physics break down, but I'm not aware of some rule book the universe came with that says the laws of physics can never break down.  



#17 Wu Li Heron

Wu Li Heron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationAnother Universe

Posted November 25 2016 - 12:02 PM

I don't see how this really resolves the singularity, if a singularity can equally explain how the universe came to be.  Yes, there is a point in the Big Bang theory in which the laws of physics break down, but I'm not aware of some rule book the universe came with that says the laws of physics can never break down.  

 

Exactly, they are following a century long tradition since the discovery of quantum mechanics where everyone tries to rule out every reasonable explanation for what is inexplicable. However, the more statistical evidence we acquire the more meaningless all of these attempts appear to be. If you don't have any kind of more useful theory to work from then ruling out all the alternatives is the best you can do.


Edited by Wu Li Heron, November 25 2016 - 12:04 PM.


#18 Wu Li Heron

Wu Li Heron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationAnother Universe

Posted November 25 2016 - 05:30 PM

Not to go overly philosophical in a science zone but are not the determinations of contexts such as time, limit, delimit, singular, plural, etc just the filling in our Thanksgiving pie of conceptual existence? The belief that we have a monopoly on the context of existence is a wee bit egotistical. Now don't misunderstand I fully acknowledge the filling, it looks disturbingly beautiful and tastes revoltingly palatable but it is the filling we determined after all. Oh yes the universe may be limitless but are we? What certain existence is there? When do we acknowledge the concept of too good to be true?

 

When we no longer make distinctions between who we are and what we are doing all of our questions have been answered to our immediate satisfaction as wonder becomes the beginning of wisdom.


Edited by Wu Li Heron, November 25 2016 - 05:30 PM.


#19 ʈuɱɓɭiɳɠ.ƌičɛ

ʈuɱɓɭiɳɠ.ƌičɛ

    Hitchhiker

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,214 posts
  • LocationKentucky, USA

Posted November 26 2016 - 02:23 AM

I don't see how this really resolves the singularity, if a singularity can equally explain how the universe came to be.  Yes, there is a point in the Big Bang theory in which the laws of physics break down, but I'm not aware of some rule book the universe came with that says the laws of physics can never break down.  

The new theory would rely on different mathematics in which singularities do not occur in nature.  This is good because it is impossible to predict the outcome of a physical process if one begins with a singularity.

 

It's true that there is nothing that says physical laws can't break down at some point, but scientific experience would seem to argue against this.  As deeper questions have been asked and our technology has improved new relationships have always been discovered that can explain observations that at one time were a mystery.  I think most physicists believe this trend will continue, but we shall see.


play-craps.jpg


#20 relaxxx

relaxxx

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,604 posts

Posted November 26 2016 - 02:30 AM

It is the most logical conclusion. Something can not come from nothing so there always was something. The singularity, as well as absolute nothing, are just concepts. We are great at imagining things that don't really exist or never really happened. The "singularity" and "nothing" could be considered polar opposites of each other, everything/nothing but again this is as much fantasizing as theorizing. Singularity and nothing are concepts beyond our differentiation and logic. Wherever science looks, they can not be found. there is no "nothing" anywhere, from the deepest depths of space to the tiniest quantum measurements.

 

A wave does not propagate through nothing, it needs a medium. Space is a substance, it is a medium for energy. Particles are not little specks of matter blasting through "nothing". Particles ARE waves OF SPACE, propagating through space. Just like waves in water are displacements of water, moving through water. Particles are electromagnetic wave fields, electro-magnetic = moving-displacement. Gravity and magnetism are the resulting forces of displacing space itself, the fabric of space. Gravity, magnetism, and relativity are all clues that space is an actual substance.    

 

Scientists keep dancing around this, like there's a stigma associated in thinking of space as a substance like aether. So they try and call it a new "particle".

 

New gravity particle

In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. 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.

Edited by relaxxx, November 26 2016 - 03:22 AM.

  • SoftKiss likes this

#21 Vanilla Gorilla

Vanilla Gorilla

    Go Ape

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,305 posts
  • LocationDown Under

Posted November 26 2016 - 10:18 AM

None of them still have any clue whatsoever as to what gravity is.

 

When someone finally works that out, I suspect everything else will fall into place

 

I also suspect the answer would have to be something way out in left field, which is why we havent even had a little sniff of the clue. Maybe even something we might find impossible to accept



#22 neonspectraltoast

neonspectraltoast

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts

Posted November 26 2016 - 10:33 AM

 

The new theory would rely on different mathematics in which singularities do not occur in nature.  This is good because it is impossible to predict the outcome of a physical process if one begins with a singularity.

 

It's true that there is nothing that says physical laws can't break down at some point, but scientific experience would seem to argue against this.  As deeper questions have been asked and our technology has improved new relationships have always been discovered that can explain observations that at one time were a mystery.  I think most physicists believe this trend will continue, but we shall see.

 

So, even if singularities in fact do occur in nature, it's good that we don't believe in them because they're unpredictable?  

So because some mysteries have been solved, we are to believe that there are no unsolvable mysteries?  And that any alternative to an unsolvable mystery must be correct?  Sorry, I don't follow.



#23 lode

lode

    One Man Orgy

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,585 posts
  • LocationDFW, Texas

Posted November 28 2016 - 07:01 PM

Warning!

 

3tags.org is an advertising firm, who hires content creators. 

 

Notice all the ads and how there are no links to the scientific articles? And how generally rambling the article is?

 

 There were over 30 advertising links on that single page, and was clearly not written by a cosmologist. 


  • farmerdon likes this

I can't fit the phrase 'Snoopys Penis Rules' into every post.


#24 Irminsul

Irminsul

    Valkyrie

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,827 posts
  • LocationBavaria, Deutschland

Posted November 28 2016 - 07:26 PM

Oh there's a /new/ theory about the origins of the universe. :D
How cute.
Red, white, black are our true colours
For these colours we will fight!
Red, white, black will crush the enemy
And will bring back what is right!

#25 Sapphire Soul

Sapphire Soul

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,215 posts

Posted November 29 2016 - 01:47 AM

Warning!

 

3tags.org is an advertising firm, who hires content creators. 

 

Notice all the ads and how there are no links to the scientific articles? And how generally rambling the article is?

 

 There were over 30 advertising links on that single page, and was clearly not written by a cosmologist. 

 

It looks like this paper actually came out in February last year.

 

This is an article from a physics website about it:

 

http://phys.org/news...n-universe.html

 

Old ideas revisited

The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.

In their paper, Ali and Das applied these Bohmian trajectories to an equation developed in the 1950s by physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri at Presidency University in Kolkata, India. Raychaudhuri was also Das's teacher when he was an undergraduate student of that institution in the '90s.

Using the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, Ali and Das derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the expansion and evolution of universe (including the Big Bang) within the context of general relativity. Although it's not a true theory of quantum gravity, the model does contain elements from both quantum theory and general relativity. Ali and Das also expect their results to hold even if and when a full theory of quantum gravity is formulated.

No singularities nor dark stuff

In addition to not predicting a Big Bang singularity, the new model does not predict a "big crunch" singularity, either. In general relativity, one possible fate of the universe is that it starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch and becomes an infinitely dense point once again.

Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.

In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.

 

And this is the source article, which contains a lot of maths!

 

http://www.sciencedi...370269314009381


Edited by Sapphire Soul, November 29 2016 - 01:49 AM.

  • Mountain Valley Wolf likes this

gallery_115237_6097_21333.jpg

 

Sun so bright that I'm nearly blind

 

Spiritualized


#26 Wu Li Heron

Wu Li Heron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationAnother Universe

Posted November 29 2016 - 08:36 AM

Bohmian physics are merely hanging on by a thread and, like Quantum Loop Gravity, are merely thought of by many as merely a necessary train of thought to pursue theoretically to see if it can provide insight into a more viable theory. In fact, Loop Gravity was invented knowing perfectly well its very likely wrong, but one of the more interesting ways of exploring the issue that should produce fundamental insights.



#27 hotwater

hotwater

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,290 posts
  • LocationNorthern New England

Posted December 01 2016 - 10:03 PM

How do they account for the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) or the proton decay?

 

 

 

Hotwater


Never! This is outrageous. I'm through with it. I'll have no more of this hell-spawn!

#28 Wu Li Heron

Wu Li Heron

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationAnother Universe

Posted December 02 2016 - 08:07 AM

How do they account for the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) or the proton decay?

 

 

 

Hotwater

 

The second law of thermodynamics has proven to be violated the smaller anything becomes. The energy can't be used to produce any useful work, but you can watch Humpty Dumpty put himself back together again because information is not limited by causality. 



#29 Logan 5

Logan 5

    Confessed gynephile

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,543 posts
  • LocationUtah

Posted December 22 2016 - 10:20 PM

 

 


“Becoming a dissident is not something that happens overnight.  You do not simply decide to become one.  It is a long chain of steps and acts.  And very often during this process, you do not really reflect upon what is happening...You don’t want to become involved with the dirt that is around you and one day, all of a sudden you wake up and realize that you are a dissident, that you are a human rights activist.” – Vaclav Havel, former Czech President (1993-2003) & activist

 

We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail.  He can be caught.  He can be killed and forgotten.

But four hundred years later an idea can still change the world.

 

"...You can't build a dream, without a plan...." -- Jefferson Starship ("It's Not Over", "No Protection" Album, 1987)


#30 Jafian

Jafian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • LocationWashington State

Posted December 27 2016 - 11:24 PM

Stuff happens because of being being what it is and it always has happened that way because if it were possible for it to ever stop doing that it would have by now so we wouldn't be talking about it and it always will for the same reason. That's my theory. lol




Click to shop at Zamnesia