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: 4
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: netbound
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.
My interpretation is similar to yours and that explanation seems much better than the one in the OP.

Our projection of the past only follows what we know based on experience up to a certain point. Before that, the physics is beyond our knowledge, and this is true regardless of whether or not the proposed idea in this paper is correct or not:

Chronology of the universe

All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period. Proposed scenarios differ radically. Some examples are the Hartle–Hawking initial state, string landscape, brane inflation, string gas cosmology, and the ekpyrotic universe. Some of these are mutually compatible, while others are not.
Given that we have some divergence of ideas on the earliest moments of the universe and they are all speculative, this paper might be just adding one more idea to the speculative mix of other ideas.

While the authors state their theory should remain true after development of a full theory of quantum gravity, I say let's develop a good theory of quantum gravity first, then see where that leads. Maybe they are right but I'm not as confident as they seem to be.

I think it's also widely expected that a good theory of quantum gravity will also eliminate the "singularity" problem with black holes, as most physicists would probably be more comfortable with some quantum description of the black hole density, rather than the "infinite density" description in relativity.

So I don't think singularities are seen as any kind of sacred cows in physics...we would rather not have them. To the extent this paper deals with one of them, it will be welcome if it turns out to be right, but what would it take to probe big bang energies? I'm thinking you might have a chance if you built a version of the LHC with a diameter roughly at the orbit of Saturn, then used a Dyson sphere to power it, which obviously isn't going to happen anytime soon. So can any of the competing ideas about the earliest moments of the big bang be resolved without such an unlikely experiment?

I'm a fan of Mike Alder's razor, cited as ""what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating". That doesn't mean it's not fun to debate such things, because sometimes it is, especially when nobody can prove anybody else wrong. It's just doesn't seem very productive if experiments can never reveal the true answer to the debate.


originally posted by: Toadmund
It's other stuff, out there, PULLING on us.
That hypothesis is highly questionable and it may be possible to prove it wrong. One thing that seems fairly certain is that we'll never be able to see what is outside our universe so that will make any kind of confirmation of that idea very difficult.




posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

Wow, fascinating

Rebel 5



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
“If people asked me what happened before the Big Bang, my normal answer would be to say, well, you know, the word ‘before’, you see, what does that mean? Well, that’s a sort of temporal concept, and if the Big Bang was a singularity in spacetime that means the very notion of time loses its meaning at this event, this so-called Big Bang. If the notion of time loses its meaning, the very notion of ‘before’ loses its meaning. Therefore, we pretend to say it’s a meaningless question to ask for ‘before’. There wasn’t a ‘before’. That’s the wrong kind of notion. And I would have perhaps gone along with this point of view until I’ve had some different ideas more recently. … The present picture of the universe is that it starts with a Big Bang and it ends with an indefinitely expanding, exponentially expanding, universe where, in the remote future, it cools off and there’s nothing much left except photons. Now what I’m saying is that in this remote future the photons have no way of keeping time: they don’t have any mass. You need mass to make a clock and you have to have a clock to measure the scale of the universe, so the universe loses track of how big it is. And this very expanded universe becomes equivalent to a Big Bang of another one. So, I’m saying that this, what we think about our present universe, is but one eon of a succession of eons, where this remotely expanding universe of each becomes the Big Bang of the next. So small and big become completely equivalent.” -Professor Roger Penrose

Removing the singularity is the wrong approach. The singularity is all there is IMO. Space/time domain is the inverse of the singularity think Fourier transforms frequency and space/time domain representations. The Frequency domain is where physics breaks down it's the prior state I think it begins and ends at the singularity every cycle and this goes on forever. I don't have the issues with this that others might have because I think the universe in itself is Mathematical hence mental, dimensionless. Anything that breaks down to 0 i have no issue with since I think 0 is a state of perfect balance and potential and is that singularity state the default state. It's just a mental, immaterial, mathematical, information universe to me. Just having that philosophy changes so much and simplifies things.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
How does a finite size mean infinite age? II'm not versed in this topic. Everything has a beginning, no?



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
We have known this a long time. The universe is like a ring. No end no beginning. This is religious doctrine, and it applies to the spirits of man. Both universe and our spirits are eternal. "As man is now, God once was, and as God is, man may become".



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

I am still perfectly happy with the 'Pythagorean Hylozoics' explanation of how the universe was formed.

Nothing modern science has proposed to date, has come close really.

It is explained from a multi-dimensional perspective.

If you can get your head around the concept of seven distinct dimensions, each divided into seven sub-planes.

Infinite primordial space and primordial energy (zero point) creates monads. (monads could be viewed as strings for better understanding of the concept) as they are the smallest discreet indestructible particles of matter. (the smallest building blocks of the universe)

The monads are released, spinning into inter-dimensional space, excited by the source (primordial-zero point energy) and passes through the seven distinct dimensions. You have to visualise that the monad is not moving through physical space, but through inter-dimensional space, so it arrives in the physical dimension in the same physical place it started, seven higher dimensional layers away.

If you could view it as it arrives in the physical plane, it would appear to manifest out of nowhere.

When it appears in the physical plane, it is a monad surrounded by a mass of other monads that simultaneously exist in all seven dimensions, but only the physical monads can be viewed objectively.

A quick summary, every monad is composed of multi-dimensional matter, but science is only able to detect with equipment such as the LHC, a tiny fraction of the monad as a component part of a particle (a particle is composed of many monads).

The Higgs field,to put it simply, IS our physical dimension.

So,science can only detect the part which exists in our physical dimension. The tip of an iceberg would be a good metaphor to visualise it.

If you imagine an arch with each foot of the arch in the first dimension (zero point) and the apex of the arch in seventh dimension (the physical dimension). The apex is the furthest point the monad can travel through inter-dimensional space, before it curves back into the higher dimensions.

The monads density is due to being surrounded with multi-dimensional monads, which limits its ability to vibrate, causing us to perceive the aggregated monads as solid matter. The vibrational state for monads in each of the higher dimensions, becomes increasingly faster and we can only sense them as photons of light, and only then in a very limited way.

It is worth mentioning at this point, that because all particles of matter are connected through each of the seven dimensions (49 if you count the sub dimensions), Gravity is a consequence of electro-magnetic attraction through multi-dimensional space and accounts for its apparent weakness.

As monads approach the physical world from the sixth dimension through to the seventh,the accumulated density of the monad causes it to spiral. There are seven discrete types of monads determined by the ratio of primordial zero point energy, primordial matter and its consciousness potential. These seven types of monad,each manifest into the physical dimension in distinctly different ways, and form a variety of aggregates once manifested.

Those aggregates are then recognisable by science as proton, neutrons and electrons. Each component of an atom is an aggregate, formed from millions of monads.

To understand the forming of aggregates (even the sub-atomic particles of an atom), you could visualise the monads attractions to each other the same way as we view aggregated gases attracting to each other during the formation of stars.

I emphasise, that it is not gravity as defined by science, but gravity as expressed as an electromagnetic energy scaled down through several dimensions of space. The exact same process in the micro, as in the macro but instead of forming stars, it is forming protons, neutrons and electrons.

There is only one kind of energy (zero point), which expresses itself differently, depending on how it scales up or down through the various dimensions.

The entire cosmos is composed of just conscious matter (monads), in constant motion (energy).

The point where monads form aggregates in physical matter,could be described as the 'event horizon' between quantum physics and the standard model of particle physics.

Aggregates appear in the physical world as etheric matter, then densifies into gases,which,then go on to form protogalaxies, and the fairly well understood process of star formation. What is not so well understood is dark matter and dark energy. They are the same thing, but are at different stages of manifestation. Dark matter is unaggregated monads in etheric form which are continuously circulating into and out of our physical dimension.

You could describe a Star as being an ‘elements factory’, because it is through this intense heat and pressure that primordial and nobel gasses combine and reform, to to create the complex table of elements catalogued by science.

If you remember, each monad is a component of multi-dimensional matter, and there is a constant flow of monads, traveling inter-dimensionally, filling up a globe into primordial space like a balloon filling with air.

Our recognisable cosmos is a finite globe of manifested matter, sitting in a sea of infinite primordial space. This exerts a constant pressure, pushing physical aggregates away (stars, galaxies) to make room for new incoming monads (dark matter) and the cosmic globe continues to build up to a finite size. There is no infinite expansion. There is a natural boundary governed by laws of physics not yet fully understood.

This filling up with monads, explains the observed expansion of the cosmos. The cause was not a big bang so much as a constant ooze from higher dimensional planes. Although matter can manifest anywhere in the cosmos, I suspect there are some point sources in the centre of each galaxy, where massive volumes of matter pertaining to each galaxy, is created and dissolved through inter-dimensional space at those places.

Once the finite cosmos has been built out,matter, through entropy over trillions of years, simply dissolves into etheric matter and returns,on it’s journey back down through the higher dimensional planes to again become zero point energy. When the cycle is complete the process starts over from the beginning.

I should point out, that all this takes place in infinite primordial space, and that there are infinite cosmoses repeating the same process at various stages of building up and dissolving away.

I haven’t mentioned the metaphysical side to all this, as that would be more appropriate at a different time in different thread in a different forum.

This is all pretty amazing considering its from a guy who lived 2600 yrs ago melded together with a little of what we have discovered in recent times.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   
have a theory about the universe in the form of a torus s020.radikal.ru... similar to red blood cell ru.static.z-dn.net... from where the red blood cell has an electric charge from friction or ... ? and if it is true, think how corruptly bloodsuckers and blood starters
edit on 12/2/15 by mangust69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Toadmund

I'm pretty sure that science, even cosmology isn't done like that.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   
I guess I am excersising my right to my own opinion.
IMO, it's valid.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Toadmund

Your opinion does not correlate to reality, though. It's wrong. Science isn't about making stuff up, it's about studying the evidence and deriving models that fit the evidence. The universe has no obligation to make sense or be intuitive to you. It is what it is, whether we like it or not.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Toadmund

Your opinion does not correlate to reality, though. It's wrong. Science isn't about making stuff up, it's about studying the evidence and deriving models that fit the evidence. The universe has no obligation to make sense or be intuitive to you. It is what it is, whether we like it or not.


Well, except for evidence that the old guard sweeps under the rug.

👣



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Toadmund
I guess I am excersising my right to my own opinion.
IMO, it's valid.


That's not an opinion though. It's an inaccuracy. Opinions are subjective and can never be wrong. You are just wrong because that isn't how science is done.

I posted that information about Dark Flow because it was similar to your idea that there would be multiple big bangs in the universe and thought you might like it. I didn't expect you to deride all of science because of it though.
edit on 12-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

What "evidence" would that be?



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BlueMule

What "evidence" would that be?


If you have to ask, then you probably aren't ready for it. Especially if you use scare quotes. Best to just leave it under your rug and carry on.

👣


edit on 694ThursdayuAmerica/ChicagoFebuThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Nice deflection. I'm not ready for it? Lol. Evidence is evidence, I can either accept it or refute it. There is no "being ready for it". Sounds to me like you don't want to post it because you think I won't accept it, which is a dumb reason not to do so. But hey that's on you.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, it was a nice deflection!

I could show you evidence that the old guard sweeps under the rug. You would then either accept it because it jives with your beliefs/ideology/philosophy/religion/personal experience, or reject it because it seems incompatible with those things.

If you reject it, you would rationalize your decision by appealing to the authority of the dominant paradigm. But that wouldn't be a refutation. Science doesn't bother refuting inconvenient evidence. It just uses the guffaw factor and pseudo-skeptic activism to sweep it under the rug, and to demonize "pseudo-scientists".

So there is really no point in getting specific. If you were really interested in rejected knowledge, I wouldn't need to give you any specifics. If you're not really interested, then you are probably enthralled by the dominant cultural paradigm. There is no point arguing with thralls.

👣


edit on 719Thursday000000America/ChicagoFeb000000ThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, it was a nice deflection!

I could show you evidence that the old guard sweeps under the rug. You would then either accept it because it jives with your beliefs/ideology/philosophy/religion/personal experience, or reject it because it seems incompatible with those things.


Possibly, but you didn't give me the chance to refute or confirm that assumption.


If you reject it, you would rationalize your decision by appealing to the authority of the dominant paradigm. But that wouldn't be a refutation. Science doesn't bother refuting inconvenient evidence. It just uses the guffaw factor and pseudo-skeptic activism to sweep it under the rug, and to demonize "pseudo-scientists".


ACTUALLY pseudo-sciences evidence isn't ignored because it is inconvenient. It is ignored because the methods used to gather the evidence are flawed and don't follow the scientific method. Much (All) of pseudo-science evidence isn't falsifiable. The way the scientific method works, is that it discards faulty evidence through the peer review process. If you don't want your evidence to be ignored then learn and follow the scientific method. If you cared to learn I could teach you were various pseudo-sciences diverge from the scientific method.


So there is really no point in getting specific. If you were really interested in rejected knowledge, I wouldn't need to give you any specifics. If you're not really interested, then you are probably enthralled by the dominant cultural paradigm. There is no point arguing with thralls.


If you are just going to rationalize why you don't want to share this "evidence" then there is really no point of you having brought it up in the first place.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

ACTUALLY pseudo-sciences evidence isn't ignored because it is inconvenient. It is ignored because the methods used to gather the evidence are flawed and don't follow the scientific method.


I disagree. I'll give you an example of a pseudo-skeptic rejecting evidence that was gathered with the scientific method.

"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do." -Richard Wiseman

As an influential pseudo-skeptic, Wiseman confronts parapsychological evidence and automatically sweeps it under the rug so that the scientific community can ignore it with a clean conscience. Well, the evidence of remote viewing is solid, and he was forced to admit it.

But he couldn't accept it philosophically. He can't wrap his indoctrinated head around it. So he moved the goal posts by arguing for double-standards because he thinks the pathological incredulity of pseudo-skeptics trumps evidence.

👣


edit on 775ThursdayuAmerica/ChicagoFebuThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Uhmm

What is the scientific proof supporting remote viewing?



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Hmmm... I see a lot of claims that the evidence is solid and follows the scientific method, but you failed to produce the actual evidence. If it follows the scientific method then it should be available for peer review. So produce it.

Heck you didn't even produce a link corroborating that quote. How do I know it wasn't taken out of context? Here is a link to someone breaking down this quote that you used.

That Wiseman Quote

But Wiseman aside, he isn't the ultimate authority on what is and isn't science. Produce the evidence. Please don't produce a youtube video though. For one I can't watch videos and two that isn't valid scientific evidence. If this has been proven scientifically like you claim then there must be a paper published with the experiment, the results, and the subsequent conclusion. Give me that.
edit on 12-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join