New Physics Model Shows Universe Might Have Existed Forever

snip:

The big bang theory is the most popular origin story for the universe. General relativity estimates that the universe is around 13.8 billion years old and began as an infinitely dense point—a singularity. This point contained all the matter in existence. The moment when it finally exploded, rapidly expanding into the universe we know and live in, is called the Big Bang.

The problem with this theory is that the math used can only explain what happened after the Big Bang, not what happened before or during the event.

A new model offers an alternative explanation; that the universe may have existed forever, with no beginning or end. The new model, which also accounts for the existence of dark matter and dark energy, applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

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

The study, coauthored by Saurya Das from the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada and published in the journal Physics Letters B, shows that the problems that arise from the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their model.

From: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/434518/scitech/science/new-physics-model-shows-universe-might-have-existed-forever

 

Oh...


I was expecting a pic of some model.

 

and another theory is that is was never a big bang, but a big bounce, and that we will keep bouncing...over and over again...no telling what things will bounce to next time...a little humor....but true in that theory.

 

I don't really follow how an infinite existing universe solves the issue of what happened prior to the expansion of the universe that general relativity can explain.

This new theory relies on the existence of gravitons as well, which with my limited understanding on the topic, intuitively seems like they may exist, however I don't believe they have been found yet.

 

but also there is the other univeres theories....and all of them are fabrics and can gently bump into another universe and create a new one from that or some such thing.....our universe being only a tiny bubble in a sea of universes.....mind blowing, really.....

 

Nude physics model shows Tyrsonswood has been around forever

 

And Friedman equations

People have been stuffing around with them for close to a hundred years

This theory also eliminates singularities

We probably still have the whole architechure wrong, there is still one big piece of the puzzle to come

 

i have no problem with the possibility that it might have, nor for that matter with quantum parallel universes.

i'll leave it to people smarter then i am about such things, to argue it out between them.

i agree that there's more to know then we yet even imagine, and its even quite possible that there always will be.

i believe einstine that gravity wells are bent space and can focus light and how it travels, but the speed of light thing, no one has gone, or sent any solid physical object, anywhere near fast enough to begin to give that anything like a fair test. i think there's something about it that prevents us from being able to observe anything going faster. the whole thing about mass and speed, has to do with what can be observed by an outside observer.

even galaxies could be born live and die, not just the solar systems withing them, and 'the' universe, could very well go on and on, with them continuing to do so.

it may have to do with our own perspective as a species that we want to believe everything has a beginning and an ending.
and that we have simply found evidence for what we looked for, because we were looking more for it then elsewhere.

realistically of course, you couldn't prove any of it by me, one way or the other. i just find it more interesting than all the petty drama in individual people's lives.

 

well, massive particles are accelerated to some 99.999% (not sure how many 9's) the speed of light in the LHC.

 

but again, no one is riding INSIDE of them. they are, after all, only particles, proving only that what can be observed externally is not contradicted, which isn't what i'm questioning.

 

How can ANYTHING last forever without changing form from "one thing" to another "thing"? Entropy canceled in certain areas? I can't make myself believe that anything adheres to the term we understand as forever. And I'll believe this --uh--forever. (Well, quite a while, anyway.)

 

Sounds great, scientific models are always great, more discussion is great, and right off the bat I don't see any problem, though I'm no physicist.

But am I the only one who has a hard time taking anything authored in current egypt, or figured out by anyone living there, who published before getting out of dodge, very seriously? Anyone smart enough to go figuring out the nature of the universe must understand the immense danger that puts them in as they live in that sort of situation - it would seem that they would have substantial motivation to not publish a legitimate article from inside egypt, and that they would have a substantial motivation to make up bullshit that, in some roundabout way, leads to some sort of justification for religious apologists.

I don't know how this would interact with islam, maybe there's something I don't know that makes this totally okay to study and hypothesize on for the glory of god, but it seems like very dangerous ground, and I would question why anyone living there would feel safe publishing this or going on record about it.


That said, of course this shouldn't color legitimate discussion and pursuit of this theory. If they've got a good model and balls that big, more power to them.

 

Funny, because I saw the this quote before

Used to explain yet another model.

To be honest, the big bang never made sense to me, never have believed it, still don't. I'm personally glad people are finally starting to question it, it's full of flaws


Take this analogy for example. Say I were to take a rubber band, and mark lines with a sharpie each 5 cm apart until it completes a circuit around the band. Very simple, each point is the same distance from one another. Then now if I were to stretch the rubber band, each line would appear to be expanding apart from one another by focusing on any given line. but in truth they are all equidistance, and there is no singularity. Only relativity.

 

Conformal Cyclic Cosmology acrually makes a lot of sense to me. Its pretty complex so im actually going to post a youtube video instead of attempting a crappy explanation (yea, a youtube video, for real).

Its only 40 min, i urge you to watch it, i promose you will find it interesting, and in some ways very simple as well.

http://youtu.be/sM47acQ7pEQ

 

That analogy doesn't really describe the singularity though. The singlarity (if it existed) happened at a quantum scale. So sticking with the analogy (which I'm not always comfortable with when describing quantum phenomena) it would be like saying intially those now separated marked lines were at one point all combined, essentially occupying one point. The major issue from my understanding is that on the quantum scale,The Standard Model of Quantum physics can account for the Electromagnetic, Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces all being joined at the very early stages of the Universe, noting that they eventually separated however still interact in the pheonema we see in the universe.The thing is the Standard Model cannont account for gravity.

Conversely, general relativity, which does account for gravity can describe a lot of the large scale objects we see in the observable universe and there are way in which we can 'go back in time' and date the universe but visible light and the laws of physics appear to breakdown when they approach the estimated 13.8 Billions year age of the Universe and singularity.

 

the analogy is intended to disprove singularity. The point is, on a larger scale, it can appear that everything is expanding relative to you (appear there is indeed a singularity from which the expansion takes place), but in truth, it may just be relative to numerous landmarks on an even larger scale.

You hit a lot of points very quickly here. I know for a fact you're more read up on these topics, but here is what I can say:
How is the age of the universe determined? Because that is an estimation determined on many variables that are themselves not truly defined. If you could explain this bit a little more, I'd be interested:

So on to my point

WMAP

Nothing seems concrete enough about this if the universe were indeed not from a singularity. Which Quantum Mathematics still can't add up. Even reading up on wikipedia.. I want to watch ace_k's video before saying more

 

so nobody watched the youtube video ... i guess i shouldnt expect that much.


LeChatVert, you should watch the video or at least look int Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. it doesnt involve the traditional big bang cingularity, and instead postulates an expanding universe which has been expanding for an infinitely long time. What we see as the cingularity is a matter of scale and the renormilization of entropy.

 

You didn't start with a singularity in your analogy though, you started with lines already marked apart, so you are not disproving or even addressing singularity.

To elaborate on the quote you posted of how astronomers find the age of the Universe, one of the primary ways is through the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and another method is measuring Red Shifts in Stars.

Here's a bit more on CMBR:

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is the afterglow of the Big Bang; one of the strongest lines of evidence we have that this event happened.


http://youtu.be/Y6hBthfoosI

 

I'll watch the video eventually. I am somewhat preoccupied with doing something else involving audio at the moment. I briefly read up on CCC.

 

The analogy doesn't start with a singularity, because the point is there is no singularity

cool video