It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

page: 2
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I must be too stupid or something, but my brain can not fathom something existing that didn't have a beginning. I don't think it applies to an all-powerful god, and I don't really think it applies to the universe.

But I absolutely could be wrong, on both accounts. But for now, I don't trust it.




posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I never understood the big bang theory..energy coming from nothing. And my son says they teach it in school as if it is fact.. It is a theory.. nothing else.. nobody knows or can prove this is the way the universe happened.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: HODOSKE


originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Baddogma
A steady state "something" makes more sense than something from nothing. It makes more sense that there always has been "something" rather than no thing.


Ugh... The Big Bang theory doesn't say that something came from nothing...



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
my first post. Interesting material from the late 90's/early 2000's: metaresearch.org...



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
There is the theological concept of emanation, as opposed to creation ex nihilo. This new quantum equation seems to favor the former, and if it gains enough support it could give "pagan" or "esoteric" philosophy/religion a buff and "orthodox" or "exoteric" mainstream philosophy/religion a debuff.

👣


edit on 805TuesdayuAmerica/ChicagoFebuTuesdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: rainman29
my first post. Interesting material from the late 90's/early 2000's: metaresearch.org...


And your first star!

Thanks for contributing.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

I think we need to get word to the folks at the super collider.

They swear that strangelets will not form and that a big bang happened.

They believe this so much they are willing to risk all of us in an attempt to prove something that never happened in the first place.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I must be too stupid or something, but my brain can not fathom something existing that didn't have a beginning. I don't think it applies to an all-powerful god, and I don't really think it applies to the universe.



But I absolutely could be wrong, on both accounts. But for now, I don't trust it.


A circle would seem that it has no begining or ending.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: HODOSKE
I never understood the big bang theory..energy coming from nothing. And my son says they teach it in school as if it is fact.. It is a theory.. nothing else.. nobody knows or can prove this is the way the universe happened.


Big bang theory doesn't state energy came from nothing. Your son appears to have not paid attention in his class. Not only does it not discuss where the energy cane from or even why.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
A circle would seem that it has no begining or ending.


Philosophically speaking, sure, but with that logic, a square has no beginning or end, either--corners are just a much harsher bend in the line. As a matter of fact all single-line shape representations have no beginning or end, under your definition. But the reality is this: You can't draw the line that creates the shape without starting (and, of course, ending) somewhere.

Just because something seems to be doesn't necessarily make it so.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Found another article that explains it a tad differently...

earthsky.org

The catch is that by eliminating the singularity, the model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before ‘collapsing’ into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang. Unfortunately many articles confuse ‘no singularity’ with ‘no big bang.’ (clarification by astrophysicist Brian Koberlein)

The upshot is that this work eliminates the need for an initial singularity of the Big Bang. That is, it eliminates the need for a single infinitely dense point from which our universe sprang some 13.8 billion years ago. The Big Bang itself, however, can still have happened, according to this model. Koberlein says:

The Big Bang is often presented as some kind of explosion from an initial point, but actually the Big Bang model simply posits that the universe was extremely hot and dense when the universe was young. The model makes certain predictions, such as the existence of a thermal cosmic background, that the universe is expanding, the abundance of elements, etc. All of these have matched observation with great precision. The Big Bang is a robust scientific theory that isn't going away, and this new paper does nothing to question its legitimacy.


This makes it seem almost like a phase change in the early universe (or perhaps the universe was in a false vacuum then and something upset that).



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

Yeah, I read a piece on this today. Quite interesting...

You cannot take my big bang away! Nevah!

You can have my big bang when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.....

But seriously, if this is even close to being real it is going to turn cosmology on it's head. Ripples will be felt for decades to come.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


since when, does the universe expend ?
[sic]

Since, always?



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Nope...

Since singularity....

oh...wait.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie




The Brane theory seems more attractive as it gets older. Maybe our universe is just a bubble in a foam that has expanded over time, and like a bubble it interacts with others and that's what these guys are hoping to find out:


BRANES: (SHORT FOR MEMBRANE)

For those who may not be familiar with 'M' theory this is taken from a fictional story I have been working on and off for a while.



You could think of Banes as some sort of string that has been stretched and flattened into a huge sheet of energy that can have several dimensions connected to its' X-Y-Z dimensional surface. No one knows how many Banes there are, only that at least one strong and one weaker bane has been theorized and now found to exist .

The total inter-dimensional universe, or everything that is, could be like a package of Bane printer paper as far as anyone knows, only the sheets almost never touch. If and when they do touch, due to a postulated imbalance of the Dark Matter gravity/energy fields, you get “BOOM” an a new universe is born much like the place we see all around us. In other words this prior hidden dimension where all gravity leaks through into the multiverse has so much energy present in just one of the banes it is almost incalculable; even though there are those who try even to this day on Earth.

“Trust me; when two Banes touch all mathematical hell breaks loose”!


Big Bang makes sense if these banes touch and is not all that hard to imagine IMO.. CERN may answer some of these questions this year or next.. Just another wait and see kinda deal...



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

The membrane theory was presented in an episode of... That Morgan Freeman science program...

I find it a bit weird. Just give me a plain ole semi-understandable big bang anyday. And a root beer float. Just the big bang and a root beer float. And cheesy fries...



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I always hated the big bang theory. Probably because of the way it was always presented.

In the begginning we believe that was big bang that...yeah but what about before that. what caused it and what happened before that? You can't just start in the middle!



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: deadeyedick

A circle would seem that it has no begining or ending.




Philosophically speaking, sure, but with that logic, a square has no beginning or end, either--corners are just a much harsher bend in the line. As a matter of fact all single-line shape representations have no beginning or end, under your definition. But the reality is this: You can't draw the line that creates the shape without starting (and, of course, ending) somewhere.



Just because something seems to be doesn't necessarily make it so.


true and i get that but can you tell me the starting point of O

after it is completed it is hard to tell other than having inside knowledge but even more than that we should not put the O at risk trying to determine the starting point. Is the risk worth the reward as we test blindly into the unknown? We do have other options than risking strangelets trying to prove a theory.

imo there is quite the chance that the big bang is the point at which the super collider created the first strangelet and compressed everything ( a few days from now?) and the rest of the circle is just what we are calling history.
edit on 10-2-2015 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
I always hated the big bang theory. Probably because of the way it was always presented.

In the begginning we believe that was big bang that...yeah but what about before that. what caused it and what happened before that? You can't just start in the middle!


If you accept there are parallel universes or dimensions then our universe is just one of many that was formed during the contact of the hypothesized Banes . Even our science now mostly believe the are parallel dimensions until something better comes along.

There is no indication our dimensional universe was the first or the last to be formed.. only that it exist..

The Bane Zone could have existed for all of time (trillions + years x infinity) and has given birth to at least 10 other dimensional universes.. All just math and theories but many theories started that way to only be proven later, correct..



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

This kind of math can tend to be subjective. I only flashed though, will read more later, but I don't seem to see anything explaining blue/red shifts or decay rates...
edit on 10-2-2015 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join