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: 3
43
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
IMO, the big bang could be a local event, if there is such a big bang(s).
The Universe being infinite can support more than one big bang, therefore we live in an infinite creation of Multiverses.

Perhaps there is no 'dark energy' repelling galaxies and other stuff in the Universe, but perhaps there are other Universes or some other massive mass ATTRACTING stuff away from us, speeding up as the attraction increases.

Therefore, in this sense, the steady state theory and the big bang theory can both be possible.
Why not, there is no limit, space is infinite.
And only one big bang, just one?!




posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
The thought that the Universe has always existed (which is what I think)
really strains the brain.

Wow, always, never began, never ends.

The more I think, the more I believe it's true, but the concept is beyond what....

Sorry, my brain just exploded, with a big bang.



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 08:21 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!


Well it worked for the Nist report on 9/11!! Someone on this planet thinks this is the way to explain all things, I think they are the same someone!!

They control science , dimensional thinking and all religions so these are the answers we get!!

Always incomplete, always lacking, they can NEVER let us know the truth!!



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Elton
........and determine the universe has a finite size (and therefore an infinite age). I'm not sure how it explains red shift, however.


Yes, but how many Universes are there?



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The problem with suggesting that the Universe is Infinite is that the matter inside it is not.

Carbon in that context, one day will experience Radioactive Decay...... hence a dilemma.

Unless that Mass was the result of an Explosion in Space/Time.

Any thoughts?
edit on 10-2-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I think there’s some confusion here over the terms “Big Bang” and “Singularity”. The paper doesn’t claim that a big bang didn’t occur. What it does is eliminate the singularity as time=0. It predicts the universe has no identifiable beginning, but rather has always existed as a kind of quantum potential which at some point collapsed into a hot dense state. That hot dense state is what we currently call the big bang. So, the paper establishes a big bang model similar to the current one, but without a singularity.

The guts behind the model is semi-classical; it contains aspects of both quantum and classical physics. So, it’s not a quantum gravity solution. It’s derived from General Relativity (the Raychaudhuri equation), but also includes additional quantum formulations. Kinda neat.

If you wanna read the paper, you can find it HERE. It’s a short paper.

Personally, I’ve never felt comfortable with the idea of a singularity, and so this paper is good news to me. Maybe we’ll eventually find a solution that half-way makes sense. This model is fairly recent, though, and hasn’t yet survived a thorough peer review, so the jury’s still out. I’m curious to see how it fares.

Great post!
Rock on...



posted on Feb, 10 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Atomic Electron Transitions are also known as Quantum Leaps...

en.wikipedia.org...

Further reading

Any thoughts?



edit on 10-2-2015 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   
the whole expanding universe thing is a result of redshift light theory. We know that the void between the stars is not a pure vacuum, so is it not reasonable to think that over vast distances photons could be slowed on their travels. This would make objects appear more redshifted the further away they are. This would also explain why the infinate sky is not pure starlight, because the distant objects light would slow below the visible light spectrum. Just a thought...



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: desbob
the whole expanding universe thing is a result of redshift light theory. We know that the void between the stars is not a pure vacuum, so is it not reasonable to think that over vast distances photons could be slowed on their travels. This would make objects appear more redshifted the further away they are. This would also explain why the infinate sky is not pure starlight, because the distant objects light would slow below the visible light spectrum. Just a thought...


No light doesn't slow down in its travel we could detect that. Also no the universe wouldn't be pure starlight unless of course inflation didn't happen. The fact that every where we look we don't see starlight means that slow light is impossible Parts of the universe would suddenly pop into view and we don't see that happen.

Slow light also has no way to explain background radiation. Inflation exactly mimics what we observe so we know not only because of redshift but also we would detect slow light by a change on its spin. Than there's also our ability to track light from neutron stars and time it so we know the rate of travel.

As far as creation itself zero point energy seems to be the key. Energy was changed into particles we know virtual particles exist. Some thing stops virtual particles from anihalating and we have particles. In this case would have been inflation didn't give time for the particles to pop out of existence. The energy wad there before matter existed it's just Einsteins equivalency principle at work E=MC2



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Toadmund

Hmmm... Interesting. I think you are referring to the dark flow here with your post. It's an interesting subject that needs more study since we don't know what it really is. But your explanation does fit.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

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!


Well it worked for the Nist report on 9/11!! Someone on this planet thinks this is the way to explain all things, I think they are the same someone!!

They control science , dimensional thinking and all religions so these are the answers we get!!

Always incomplete, always lacking, they can NEVER let us know the truth!!


Not only that, but THEY are everywhere! They know everything and .....(drumroll).... they REALLY are out to get YOU!

And now, a word from our sponsor: Paranoia R Us!

Is everyone out to get you? Do THEY seem to be everywhere? Well...we have the solution for you! First, for the low price of 19.95 you will receive not one, not two, but THREE tin foil hats!
In addition, if you call within the next 10 minutes you will also receive a prescription of Xanax at no extra charge!

Now: Back to our program: Physics, Cosmology and the origins of the universe.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: desbob

I am more in favor of "the farther away you look, the farther back in time you are seeing" theory as an explanation for the increased red shift at extreme distances. The farther back you are looking in time, the closer to the big bang you are seeing, hence the appearance of rapid acceleration at distance...

oh...wait...big bang....dang.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
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.


Well, at least no one can accuse you of not having an imagination!


If you're truly concerned about the risks of the LHC compressing the universe into a singularity, theoretically, all it would do is start the process of evolution and the processes of the universe all over again. But, I presonally think that all of the talk about the LHC causing the implosion of the universe is alarmist conjecture--like you said, it's all the unknown, and that's a pretty extreme conclusion to come to when there's no telling what will happen (other than things that already have, and haven't imploded the universe yet).

As you say, it's hard to tell the starting point of O if you don't have inside information, but maybe the starting point isn't all that important, anyhow--maybe it's the path that is of importance, and whether or not it stands alone in three dimensions, or if it's just one of myriad slices of a larger sphere that we have yet to discover.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




but my brain can not fathom something existing that didn't have a beginning.


Assuming multi-verses exist or the existence of something beyond our universe , its possible that this universe was created from other one(s) where our physics don't hold up and being inside our universe we wouldn't be able to observe the creation of our instance?

IMO Its a very cool article but I don't think we have the answers to enough variables to say how it happened one way or another. There is to much unknowns and questions to be answered but research as this is part of getting the answers.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
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.


In the models that produce stranglets there is only one "species" of possible stranglet that is a matter conversion catalyst. it's sort of like possible species of monopoles. there is in that set of theoretical monopoles; one monopole that similarly catalytically converts matter. physicists do not yet know what species of monopole or strange matter have real world representatives.

however as i and others have posted elsewhere: when stranglets come up WRT collider experiments; such collisions occur in immeasurable numbers at higher energy levels than any man made collider yet devised can manage. this includes cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere of earth that have been occurring since earth first formed. We are still here. we will be here tomorrow. if there was any realistic probability of such particles being real we would not be. if such particles really did exist though it would be almost as neat as it would be dangerous: a free infinite energy power supply if you suspended one in an appropriate containment device.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
WRT to colliders producing a quantum level blackhole; remember that cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere occur ant higher energies and in higher numbers that the collider can manage by many orders of magnitude. this has been going on since earth first formed into the configuration it is in now; atmosphere, magnetic field; etc. cosmic rays include particles and nuclei of all sorts including the protons that are going to be banged together in the collider.

in addition to that, remember that in quantum theory blackholes are popping up and disappearing in every cubic millimeter of space at every moment. this has not led to the destruction of a single planet as far as we know. these black holes are born starved. because of hawking processes they expend all of thier energy almost as soon as they are born. the challenge isn't to prevent them from forming. it's to feed them before they starve. we would want to do this so as to explore how to use them as a power source and in the case of wormholes formed by the same process; to grab them, stabilize them and enlarge them enough to send a signal through or in the best case to send the starship enterprise through.
edit on 11-2-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
How can singularities not appear in their theory when we have a whole long list of known black holes?


Probably because black holes works in different ways. The Big bang was everything condensed in a single point. If it was a black hole nopthing would ever come out and the universe would be, well, a big black hole for some amazong ammount of time until it just faded away int radiation.
edit on 11-2-2015 by Frocharocha because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-2-2015 by Frocharocha because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Toadmund

Hmmm... Interesting. I think you are referring to the dark flow here with your post. It's an interesting subject that needs more study since we don't know what it really is. But your explanation does fit.

Wow, there are scientists showing possible evidence to show this may be the case!

Dr Mersini-Houghton believes her hypothesis has been proven from the Planck data that data has been used to create a map of light from when the universe was just 380,000 years old. "These anomalies were caused by other universes pulling on our universe as it formed during the Big Bang," she says. "They are the first hard evidence for the existence of other universes that we have seen."

This is what makes sense to my imagination, my common sense, and just thinking about it and how popular mainstream science takes crazy theories and then make more crazy theories based on those to bolster those theories.
Current cosmology requires they make stuff up, pounding square pegs into round holes, if it don't fit, make it fit. They do this to explain something that could be completely wrong, where things don't add up, so they add more math until it works, then they label this new added math, therefore that must be it.

Dark energy pushing our universe apart at increasing speed?
gimme a break!

It's other stuff, out there, PULLING on us.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
This is a Science News/Msn video on the topic....

www.msn.com...



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton
I have always asked myself......How can something that has no end, have a beginning? The universe could look like an infinite lake with a soft rain hitting it, a bunch of big bangs going off all the time.




new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join