Aussie researchers rewrite Big Bang theory

Melbourne researchers believe they may be on the brink of rewriting the history of the universe.

The paper being published suggests it may be possible to view "cracks" in the universe that would support the theory of Quantum Graphity - considered to be the holy grail of physics.

"we should imagine it as a cooling of water into ice" The team of researchers from the University of Melbourne and RMIT say instead of thinking of the start of the universe as being a big bang,

"Think of the early universe as being like a liquid,"
"Then as the universe cools, it 'crystallises'.
"The reason we use the water analogy is water is without form.
"In the beginning there wasn't even space, space did not exist because there was no form."

"The biggest problem with the big bang model is the bang itself," Mr Quach says. "At the bang, physics breaks down.

If the Quantum Graphity "cracks" do exist, they will bend or reflect light, which, if observed through a telescope would support their predictions.

"If they prove my predictions that's really good evidence for the condensed matter model of quantum graphity in which case you can throw out all the other attempts."

Quantum_gravity
big-bang-theory
big-bang-t heory-under-threat-from-quantum-graphity-breakthrough

Just found this to be honest i haven't wrapped my head around this yet so i have little to add, any contributions are more than welcome.

"Ancient Greek philosophers wondered what matter was made of: was it made of a continuous substance or was it made of individual atoms?” he said.

“With very powerful microscopes, we now know that matter is made of atoms.”

"Thousands of years later, Albert Einstein assumed that space and time were continuous and flowed smoothly, but we now believe that this assumption may not be valid at very small scales.

“A new theory, known as Quantum Graphity, suggests that space may be made up of indivisible building blocks, like tiny atoms. These indivisible blocks can be thought about as similar to pixels that make up an image on a screen. The challenge has been that these building blocks of space are very small, and so impossible to see directly.”
However James Quach and his colleagues believe they may have figured out a way to see them indirectly.

big-theory-chill

"Think of the early universe as being like a liquid,"
"Then as the universe cools, it 'crystallises'.
"The reason we use the water analogy is water is without form.
"In the beginning there wasn't even space, space did not exist because there was no form."

"The biggest problem with the big bang model is the bang itself," Mr Quach says. "At the bang, physics breaks down

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Once again physics proves the Bible right.

reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery


Not so much a "Big Bang", but "Big Splash !"

Wonder if it is possible to peep through one of these cracks, to see what's on the other side ?

reply to post by DarthMuerte


I had a similar thought

Look, and it can't be seen. Listen, and it can't be heard. Reach, and it can't be grasped. Above, it isn't bright. Below, it isn't dark. Seamless, unnamable, it returns to the realm of nothing. Form that includes all forms, image without an image, subtle, beyond all conception. Approach it and there is no beginning; follow it and there is no end. You can't know it, but you can be it, at ease in your own life. Just realize where you come from: this is the essence of wisdom.”
― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching: Zen Teachings on the Taoist Classic

don't know if its that relevant, but made me think of this?

I always find these kind of hypotheses interesting, and each year I am more exited to see what is being postulated. I have not heard of a version of the initiation of our universe as it being a kind of liquid that crystalised. Sounds kinda cool and interesting, and was the first alternate theory that I have heard in a while that I havn't shrugged off. I'll have to do some more reading but still gotta love interesting finds like this. Cheers OP S&F

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Physics didn't "Prove" anything there, unless you're talking about god being a theory just like the Big Bang.

“Light and other particles would bend or reflect off such defects, and therefore in theory we should be able to detect these effects,” he said.

The team has calculated some of these effects and if their predictions are experimentally verified, the question as to whether space is smooth or constructed out of tiny indivisible parts will be solved once and for all

-big-theory-chill-

reply to post by DarthMuerte and Freedom_is_Slavery


..... and it made me think of the fact that most creation myths I know of mention water out of which everything emerged.

Here a Chinese story that mentions something formless …

There was something featureless yet complete, born before heaven and earth; Silent – amorphous – it stood alone and unchanging. We may regard it as the mother of heaven and earth. Not knowing its name, I style it the "Way."

source

I wouldn’t be surprised it will turn out to be some kind of a plasma.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Well...how about "Once again, a Christian jumps on a new theories bandwagon and declares it proof because it supports their religion, not because it is a proven theory."

Very interesting, OP. What is being proposed, then, would be a twist of super string?

Or, possibly (and this is just spewing from my mind) perhaps this is just the next smallest structure that we are discovering.

And years from now when our technology has sufficiently advanced, we will discover yet another smaller structure that these current ones are made of.

Maybe that is our fate, to continue to keep finding smaller and smaller building blocks. Always learning more, but it's never enough to grasp the full thing.

reply to post by watchitburn


I don't think there are structures at that level of resolution. At that level of resolution, everything is a blur of probability. It is that whole "collapsing the wave function" thing. Were this not so, Schrodingers Cat would undecidedly be either dead or alive, but not both.

reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery


I am more and more puzzled by the attempts, by physicists, to absolutely prove Big Bang right, even if they don't make sense and try to patch everything up. Now they are patching things up with cracks... I know that quantum predictions itself collapses the further you go back to the point of singularity which the universe came from, but it still hardly explains why the universe is 40 billion l.y. across but "only" 13.7 billion years old. It would mean that the first billion years of the Universe was undergoing an expansion about double the speed of light - yet this powerfull energy did not influence complex molecular formation? Ridiculous.

Can someone explain all this in layman terms?

Just one thing I am curious about. If this replaces the BBT model what is the relationship with this 'quantum graphity' and the accelerating expansion of the Universe?

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Next,when Scientist discover that a pink turtle gave birth to us, bible will interpret to make it fit.

Plus, i wouldn't even consider god a legit theory, god doesn't have any evidence other then those that are delusional.

___________

On topic: i really don't care about the Big Bang Theory, im not even 100% on it, i'm more of like 65%(oh yeah that does not mean i'm 35% god, i'm 1% god). I can understand studying about the Big Bang for the purpose ot the expanding universe but i think there might be more to it, maybe Big Bang is just a end product, anyway, i'm not concluded that the Big bang is the start, and i don't care because it does not affect my daily life. maybe it will matter and will be a worth discussion in the far distant future.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Well, the further you go at the beginning, at the Universe being born, they discovered that anomalies occurred, anomalies that no physicists could explain. So, instead of figuring out a new theory, the big physicists said, "oh, well, the reason we can't predict these anomalies is because quantum theory, and every theories, will gradually become useless in predicting anything of the Universe the more you go back in time". And now, these physicists try to patch things up using a "crack" theory.

Originally posted by solargeddon
Wonder if it is possible to peep through one of these cracks, to see what's on the other side ?

Probably a laser beam controlled by a quantum computer that then projects the holographic image of the universe stored on a holographic hard drive... ;-p

reply to post by swan001


So then what in your opinion is the more accurate theory.

reply to post by luciddream




OK, just to make sure we are clear on this....you don't like God. Well....maybe just the smallest bit. But only about 1%.

Got it.

reply to post by luciddream

and i don't care because it does not affect my daily life. maybe it will matter and will be a worth discussion in the far distant future.

Understanding more about the Universe allows us to build cooler toys. Since apparently that's your primary concern