It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Could the famed "Big Bang" theory need a revision? A group of theoretical physicists suppose the birth of the universe could have happened after a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole and ejected debris.
Before getting into their findings, let's just preface this by saying nobody knows anything for sure. Humans obviously weren't around at the time the universe began. The standard theory is that the universe grew from an infinitely dense point or singularity, but who knows what was there before?
"For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity," stated Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist with the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada who co-authored the new study.
So what are the limitations of the Big Bang theory? The singularity is one of them. Also, it's hard to predict why it would have produced a universe that has an almost uniform temperature, because the age of our universe (about 13.8 billion years) does not give enough time—as far as we can tell—to reach a temperature equilibrium.
Most cosmologists say the universe must have been expanding faster than the speed of light for this to happen, but Ashford says even that theory has problems: "The Big Bang was so chaotic, it's not clear there would have been even a small homogenous patch for inflation to start working on."
The Perimeter Institute has some very brilliant and accomplished people associated with it. But this article drops the ball in a big way on this one. It's probably the fault of the popular writer more so than the Perimeter Institute.
1) This is not a developed "theory". It is a speculation that emerges from string theory and quantum loop gravity. It raises more questions than it answers,,, meaning it is not self-consistent.
2) The reporter does not make it clear that these journal articles and papers are often only meant to raise questions, not for the purpose of answering any unresolved questions. There is a correct way to approach the scientific literature, and it does not involve accepting at face any proposition just because of the standing of the author or institution.
3) There is nothing new in this paper, these ideas have been bandied around for more than 20 years.
Read more at: phys.org...
reply to post by stormdancer777
plagiarism of Hyperresonance Theory by Omerbashich... who derived equations relating gravity with c but Wineland stole it from Omar and scored 2012 Nobel.
according to Omar 3D universes tidally dragging on each others... this "new" theory has just wrapped 3D universes into a package that no layman could ever grasp... yep, plagiarism aight... craftily done too