Science does it again: Big Bang going out the window?

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Science is learning new things always. always changing as it discovers things which were always there, but did not have the eyes to see. there is alot that science is currently unable to observe. more reason why we should not put our faith of existence in the hands of science. we obviously do not understand one iota of our universe yet.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

First evidence that the universe is not as we know it has emerged from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the giant atom-smashing machine built to recreate conditions at the dawn of time.

Confirmation of the results, showing minute deviations in the behaviour of a sub-atomic particle, would indicate the existence of a 'new physics' model of the universe.

Until now scientists have relied on the 'Standard Model', a description of the nuts and bolts mechanics of the universe - its particles and forces - that has worked well but contains serious gaps.

For instance, the Standard Model cannot explain phenomena such as dark matter, invisible material that shrouds galaxies and holds them together, or gravity.


as i have said time and time again. science and religion will unite. since they are both 2 sides of the same coin. dark matter is the blackboard of thought, and light is its chalk with which it draws out existence. this is why thought affects experiments giving rise to the 'quantum enigma'. science can analyse only the logical aspects of existence with machines and sensors. but the other aspects of existence must be analysed by conscious living beings.

science will approach a dead-end in every field and in every direction, as it learns more, it will learn more of the higher intelligence which holds us.

when we come to understand the mystic forces which work together with the logical apparitions of physical reality, man will become accelerated in technological development.

science must come to realize that just as there MUST BE a Science to spirituality.. that there is also a spirituality.. to science.

they are slowly approaching my particular field of expertise.. inter-dimensional travel.

"every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."
— Albert Einstein. Letter (24 Jan 1936). Quoted in Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) 33. Science quotes
edit on Sun Aug 4 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed quote, EX tags IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS




posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
I've attempted to use Newton's Cradle as an example in the past. A choke ring as the plate-shaped barrier between spheres - that being our visible light. The following video gets the point across:




And a few posts down - the drive: System of Truth



edit on 4-8-2013 by Americanist because: (no reason given)


+6 more 
posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
You know that the Standard Model has to do with fundamental atomic particles, not the big bang, right?

They think they may have found something...maybe. That's happened before at CERN before. Remember the "faster than light" neutrons.

Really interesting. But again, it doesn't really say much about the big bang.

Here's a source that's a bit more coherent. This does not toss the Standard Model out. It expands upon it, possibly providing clues about the nature of dark matter and gravity.

The Standard Model, which has given the most complete explanation up to now of the universe, has gaps, and is unable to explain phenomena like dark matter or gravitational interaction between particles. Physicists are therefore seeking a more fundamental theory that they call "New Physics", but up to now there has been no direct proof of its existence, only indirect observation of dark matter, as deduced, among other things, from the movement of the galaxies.
phys.org...



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   
oh no...somebody better alert the scientific community. A hole lot of papers will need to be peer re re reviewed



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


whats your stance on the big bang theory phage? and will the gas cloud thats due to hit the black hole in september (i think) shed any light on the big bang theory?
And would a photon computer help or would that further confuse the situation with the photon being at 2 places at the same time(faster then light?)



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Ta1ntedJustice
 


whats your stance on the big bang theory phage?
As far as I understand it, it makes sense. If that's the right word.


and will the gas cloud thats due to hit the black hole in september (i think) shed any light on the big bang theory?
I don't think so. I don't see why it would.


And would a photon computer help or would that further confuse the situation with the photon being at 2 places at the same time(faster then light?)
Your concept of what entanglement (I think that's what you're talking about) differs from my understanding of it. But would a photon computer help what?



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   
This is nothing new, currently we do not have a model to explain physics at the moment of the big bang. The hope is combining General Relativity with Standard Model may shed some light upon this and other fundamental questions of physics involving black holes and singularities. The Standard Model however adequately explains the workings of the universe under all other circumstances, therefore it is currently the accepted model of particle physics. In short: the Standard Model falls short in extreme circumstances but it sufficiently explains all other occurrences in universe, so it is accepted until scientists work out a new theory to overcome its shortcomings.

PS Phage: Neutrinos were thought be faster than light, not neutrons.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Pistoche
 

Yeah, thanks. I knew that.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Science is cumulative and it is very rarely, if ever, outright "wrong". Things are built upon, expanded upon, clarified yet there hasn't been many cases of blatantly throwing out theories or laws like they are yesterday's garbage.

Also, the difference between religion, philosophy and science often gets confused in historical reference for some reason. Like when people try to say the "flat earthers" were all a bunch of ignorant self-absorbed scientists when people long before their time knew the world was round.

Yes we don't have every answer to every question in the world, yet the scientific body of knowledge does not claim to. That is the job for religious zealots, and somehow they keep trying to confuse the two.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   
While the title is misleading, this is still a really important piece of news. Having experimental evidence that a more fundamental realm of physics does exist is a big deal, and considering the 4.5 sigma rating, I'm willing to bet this will turn out to be a real effect. It's blatantly obvious that the Standard Model is not complete, it's more like a dodgy patch job of all the theories that we know work, that's why scientists are always seeking out the elusive Grand Unified Theory and The Theory Of Everything. The article mentions one example of "New Physics", and that is String Theory. Personally I prefer my space loopy and not stringy.
edit on 4/8/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Ta1ntedJustice
 


whats your stance on the big bang theory phage?
As far as I understand it, it makes sense. If that's the right word.


So in that case, you don't understand it.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GalaxyEyes

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Ta1ntedJustice
 


whats your stance on the big bang theory phage?
As far as I understand it, it makes sense. If that's the right word.


So in that case, you don't understand it.


Well, in terms of physics there is nothing to understand about the big bang as we currently do not have a mathematical model for the big bang. However, other empirical/observational evidences such as cosmic microwave background radiation, age of stars/formation of galaxies, homogeneity of the visible universe, and expansion of the universe all point towards a universe originating from the big bang.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   
This is an interesting thread so I am posting to find it again. I really do not have anything of value to add, I would enjoy reading this discussion in its entirety however, and follow up later when more scientists confirm or deny these particular findings and how they relate to a deeper explanation of our current scientific theories.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by filledcup
we obviously do not understand one iota of our universe yet.
To be more precise, we do know something about the ~4% baryonic matter. It's the other ~96% made of dark matter and dark energy we don't understand.



Evidence For 'New Physics' Means Universe Is Not As We Know It...

For instance, the Standard Model cannot explain phenomena such as dark matter, invisible material that shrouds galaxies and holds them together, or gravity.

The term 'new physics' was coined to describe more fundamental theories that go beyond the Standard Model, some of which involve strange concepts such as tiny vibrating "strings" and extra dimensions.
String theory isn't all that "new". Physicist Lawrence Krauss made a TED presentation and showed this cartoon to summarize the results of 40 years of string theory:


In other words, the model isn't understood enough yet to say if it's right or wrong, if there even is a model...I'm not sure I'd call it that.

At least scientists admit they don't know what they don't know and are looking for answers based in evidence, which is far preferable to people claiming they already have answers to unanswered questions, but don't have any evidence to support them. The historical accuracy rate of the latter hasn't been very good.
edit on 4-8-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
String theory isn't all that "new". Physicist Lawrence Krauss made a TED presentation and showed this cartoon to summarize the results of 40 years of string theory:


And that is why I prefer my space loopy.


LQG differs from string theory in that it is formulated in 3 and 4 dimensions and without supersymmetry or Kaluza–Klein theory extra dimensions, while the latter requires both to be true. There is no experimental evidence to date that supports string theory's predictions of supersymmetry and Kaluza–Klein theory extra dimensions. In a 2003 paper A dialog on quantum gravity,[74] Carlo Rovelli regards the fact LQG is formulated in 4 dimensions and without supersymmetry as a strength of the theory as it represents the most parsimonious explanation, consistent with current experimental results, over its rival string/M-theory. Peter Woit in Not Even Wrong and Lee Smolin in The Trouble with Physics also regards string/M-theory to be in conflict with current known experimental results.

Loop Quantum Gravity - Gravitons, string theory, super symmetry, extra dimensions in lqg





posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I knew it.

As soon as I read the title, I knew that religion would be in there somewhere.

Keep trying ole faithful one



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Science is a self-correcting process. There is no endgame in science. As we make more observations, our theories will change or be discarded to be replaced by better ones.

This is very different when compared to religion, which is dogmatic and very resistant to change. I'm not saying religion is bad, just different than science.

Then there is metaphysics. It does not rely entirely on experimental evidence but also includes philosophy and theology.

From a scientific perspective, it would be very arrogant to assume we already knew everything there is to know about everything.

Can science, religion and metaphysics co-exist? Why not, unless you have an agenda.

I am almost certain our theory of the Big Bang will change or be modified. Consider, for example, the Evidence that events happened before the Big Bang.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by filledcup
there is alot that science is currently unable to observe. more reason why we should not put our faith of existence in the hands of science.


When we apply your same logic to any other concept, we come to the same conclusions. for instance:

there is a lot that religion is currently unable to observe. more reason why we should not put our faith of existence in the hands of religion.

When we use your logic, you are basically saying that we should not put our faith in anything. I propose that we put our faith in the things that work best. Praying that a disease is cured has a lot worse track record of success than modern science based medicine. So for my personal health I would put my faith in science.

If for you personally religion (or other world view) works better than science, then that is fine by me. As long as nobody it forcing his religion upon others, I am ok with it. I do despise religious parents who deny their kids vaccination because they believe its them getting mortally ill is gods will.



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by filledcup
 


Humans erroneously believe that the consistency of a belief validates it, when in fact validation of statements renders them no longer consistent.

Religion isn't right as a result of never changing and science isn't wrong as a result of revising old erroneous truths, science grows "more right" because it is a process of continuous revision.

-rrr



posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
big bang is nonsense anyways, with no physic laws, how is a big bang supposed to happen lol, you could explain the big bang with physic but before existence there were no physic aswell





new topics
top topics
 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join