Theory Predicts Universe May Have Existed Forever

http://3tags.org/article/the-universe-may-have-existed-forever-theory-predicts-universe-has-no-beginning

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.

 

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

 

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...

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

 

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.

 

Unless the universe comes into existence as 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...

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

They still dont know shit

I wanna see the headline


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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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".