Jump to content

No Big Bang?


Deranged Rhino

Recommended Posts

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 by GreggyT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

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!! :cry:

 

1411450815906_wps_26_Leonard_and_Amy_mak

Edited by Gary M
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...