Deranged Rhino Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Pretty cool stuff in this article. A new quantum equation posits that the universe has existed forever, with no beginning or end. Any of the physicists here wish to chime in for the novices like myself? http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html "In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity." Edited February 9, 2015 by GreggyT
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste lol
Deranged Rhino Posted February 9, 2015 Author Posted February 9, 2015 copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste lol Posting from a tablet always !@#$s up my quotes!
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 My work server is sometimes slow and I often duplicate posts when I get too impatient.
Nanker Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Big letdown is more like it. With a thread title "No Big Bang" I was expecting something more along the lines of what a GBID is like.
Gary M Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Pretty cool stuff in this article. A new quantum equation posits that the universe has existed forever, with no beginning or end. Any of the physicists here wish to chime in for the novices like myself? http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html Heck, you had me thinking that they canceled the show, and I wouldn't get my weekly dose of Penny in yoga pants!! Edited February 9, 2015 by Gary M
DC Tom Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Intriguing idea. The write-up is ****, though. I have to read the actual paper to judge. The thing that immediately jumps out at me is that although they're trying to eliminate the singularity of the Big Bang, their idea as written up in that article easily extends to a general theoretical principle, which raise a whole host of questions (for starters, singularities aren't unnatural or artificial - the phase transformation of water to ice is a de facto singularity, and very real and observable. And then there's the obvious fact that, if they're explaining away singularities, their theory should be able to describe and predict the structure of black holes.) But that may just be a feature of the write-up being ****, like I said. One important point: Physics Letters B is hardly a top-shelf journal. It's related to Physica, which isn't a bad journal itself, but anything with "Letters" in it is for papers whose authors prioritize speed of publication over scientific rigor and thorough peer review. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just written to a looser scientific standard, and should be treated accordingly.
Beerball Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Intriguing idea. The write-up is ****, though. I have to read the actual paper to judge. The thing that immediately jumps out at me is that although they're trying to eliminate the singularity of the Big Bang, their idea as written up in that article easily extends to a general theoretical principle, which raise a whole host of questions (for starters, singularities aren't unnatural or artificial - the phase transformation of water to ice is a de facto singularity, and very real and observable. And then there's the obvious fact that, if they're explaining away singularities, their theory should be able to describe and predict the structure of black holes.) But that may just be a feature of the write-up being ****, like I said. One important point: Physics Letters B is hardly a top-shelf journal. It's related to Physica, which isn't a bad journal itself, but anything with "Letters" in it is for papers whose authors prioritize speed of publication over scientific rigor and thorough peer review. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just written to a looser scientific standard, and should be treated accordingly. once again, you've taken the words right out of my mouth
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Intriguing idea. The write-up is ****, though. I have to read the actual paper to judge. The thing that immediately jumps out at me is that although they're trying to eliminate the singularity of the Big Bang, their idea as written up in that article easily extends to a general theoretical principle, which raise a whole host of questions (for starters, singularities aren't unnatural or artificial - the phase transformation of water to ice is a de facto singularity, and very real and observable. And then there's the obvious fact that, if they're explaining away singularities, their theory should be able to describe and predict the structure of black holes.) But that may just be a feature of the write-up being ****, like I said. One important point: Physics Letters B is hardly a top-shelf journal. It's related to Physica, which isn't a bad journal itself, but anything with "Letters" in it is for papers whose authors prioritize speed of publication over scientific rigor and thorough peer review. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just written to a looser scientific standard, and should be treated accordingly. THE UNREVIEWED UNWASHED PEASANTRY
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Not for TRBJ anyway.... Can't TRBJ insults be limited to like, two threads?
DC Tom Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Can't TRBJ insults be limited to like, two threads? Not only "No," but youll be hearing about this here for the rest of your life. Ed is still a horrible human being, for example. Best to develop a sense of humor about it.
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Not only "No," but youll be hearing about this here for the rest of your life. Ed is still a horrible human being, for example. Best to develop a sense of humor about it. Can we wait till I've posted in a thread atleast? Or is that still a no.
Beerball Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Can we wait till I've posted in a thread atleast? Or is that still a no. no
Azalin Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 If there was no big bang, how would the expansion of the universe be explained?
Marv's Neighbor Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 It's just like one big Ground Hog day!
Beerball Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 If there was no big bang, how would the expansion of the universe be explained? Stuff has to go somewhere. Have you ever moved and wondered at the amount of stuff you had acquired? Have you ever rented a space so you can store your stuff? Have you ever packed your garage so full of stuff that you couldn't fit a car in? It's the stuff.
Azalin Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Stuff has to go somewhere. Have you ever moved and wondered at the amount of stuff you had acquired? Have you ever rented a space so you can store your stuff? Have you ever packed your garage so full of stuff that you couldn't fit a car in? It's the stuff. Now that you mention it, I don't even know where all the stuff in my pockets came from. You're definitely onto something - the theory of Storage Space (S-space), where space itself is actually static, but it's contents are continually expanding.
4merper4mer Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Misleading thread title. i thought it meant that Sabrina Dudish was lying.
Beerball Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Misleading thread title. i thought it meant that Sabrina Dudish was lying. Is that one of your code names?
Recommended Posts