Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Quantum Equations Suggest Big Bang Never Happened

1 2 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

Ash Small

Thu Feb 12 2015, 02:43PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Two physicists are trying to revive one of the great debates of twentieth-century science, arguing that the Big Bang may never have happened. Their work presents a radically different vision of the universe from the one cosmologists now work with.

Conundrum

Fri Feb 13 2015, 08:29PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4059

Intriguing.

Dr. Slack

Sat Feb 14 2015, 04:47PM

Registered Member #72 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 08:29AM
Location: UK St. Albans
Posts: 1659

I never did like the 'laws of physics break down in a singularity' argument. Laws of physics don't 'break down' in certain circumstances, it just means that we haven't been imaginative and clever enough to propose and test ideas for what could happen there. Rather like 'scientists prove bee cannot fly!' stories.

Ash Small

Sat Feb 14 2015, 09:01PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

We were told that science and reason would replace our faith in God. We are now being asked to put our faith in unproven theories. Are we simply replacing our faith in God with faith in Einstein?

Shrad

Sun Feb 15 2015, 07:16PM

Registered Member #3215 Joined: Sun Sept 19 2010, 08:42PM
Location:
Posts: 780

I think whatever the level of understanding we'll have there will always be a flaw at the end of our perception horizon

what if the bigbang was only suggested because the universe was experiencing some kind of oscillatory expansion and compression in a larger scale?

what if our perception was limited to the effect of closer galaxies and black holes and if from another point of view the universe would be perceived as far younger or far older?

we are still like children in our universe, and when I see how we behave as a race I fear that we will shortly lose our means of studying the universe by having made our civilization collapse...

we should curb our consumption and focus on those questions instead of escalating nonsense

Dr. Slack

Sun Feb 15 2015, 11:41PM

Registered Member #72 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 08:29AM
Location: UK St. Albans
Posts: 1659

I got an interesting insight into the problem of origin theories the other day when I read that all theories that were being looked at so far were essentially causitive. That is, what causes what? The conceptual problem with using only causitive theories to delve into what came before, is that they must posit, by construction, something before. So what causes that?

We are restricting our inquiry at the moment into theories that can only push the question backwards.

I am not going so far as to say that logic should tell us to abandon causation when looking for where the universe came from, but only to observe that if we only look among certain types of theory, and if that type of theory excludes sme types of origins, we may be barking up the wrong tree.

Andy

Mon Feb 16 2015, 05:08AM

Registered Member #4266 Joined: Fri Dec 16 2011, 03:15AM
Location:
Posts: 874

Was trying to think of a MATRIX question and this one poped up.

Say you have to make a new verbal lauwage, what letter will equal what sound, that can not be apart of what you know say English abcdefg..., so you cant say ha,tb,moo etc.

Pretty much, you cant think outside the box your put in, which relates to the question by, if something has expansion, why does it have to have a small starting point.

Ash Small

Tue Feb 17 2015, 12:19AM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Is our quest for knowledge about to destroy the universe?

Uspring

Tue Feb 17 2015, 11:39AM

Registered Member #3988 Joined: Thu Jul 07 2011, 03:25PM
Location:
Posts: 711

That's the stuff tabloid articles are made of. Quote:

"The men who would play God, in searching for the God particle, are truly going to find more than they bargained for as they open the gates of hellâ€

As a reminder:
Leon Max Lederman wanted to publish a book about the Higgs boson under the name "The goddamn particle". His publisher made him to change this to "The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?". The press took this up eagerly, so the term "God particle" shows up ubiquitely and makes every physicist wince. Using this term to imply, that man is playing God is utter bs.

Another topic is the "recreation of the big bang" supposedly attempted at CERN. What is attempted is to create a quark gluon plasma, a state of matter, which is believed to exist shortly after the bang occurred. This has nothing to do with recreating the bang itself. Quark gluon plasmas have been investigated for a long time already and are likely occur all the time during other violent events in the universe, such as star collapse.

Dr. Slack wrote:

I got an interesting insight into the problem of origin theories the other day when I read that all theories that were being looked at so far were essentially causitive. That is, what causes what? The conceptual problem with using only causitive theories to delve into what came before, is that they must posit, by construction, something before. So what causes that?

Heisenberg once remarked in a lecture I was fortunate to attend, that causality is implicit in the basic theory as it is formulated in terms of differential equations involving derivatives with respect to time, so they predict future states as they evolve from current ones. General relativity, being the basis of the big bang theory, allows to describe the evolution of the universe quite well. It does have the quirk, though, of not giving us any information about the "before". AFAIK, space and also time was created according to GR, so it does not really make sense to ask about a "before".

Ash Small

Tue Feb 17 2015, 01:06PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

I realise it's a 'tabloid article', Uspring, but Stephen Hawking was correctly quoted. I also realise that he, like Einstein, has been proved wrong in the past.

Obviously, the 'big bang' can't be re-created without compressing the whole universe into a single point, which, as far as I'm aware, the LHC isn't capable of doing, but why is Stephen Hawking issueing these warnings?

1 2 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob