Buddhas Hand Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Forget the Big Bang - 'Rainbow Gravity' theory suggests our universe has NO beginning and stretches out infinitely Claims that gravity's effect is felt differently by various wavelengths of lightCurrent belief is light will follow the same set path regardless of frequencyIf theory is correct, it means that our universe stretches back into time infinitely with no singular point where it started To think that our universe is 13.8 billion years old is incredible enough. But now researchers are proposing that the universe stretches back into time infinitely with no singular point where it started. The idea is one possible result of something known as ‘rainbow gravity’- a theory that is not widely accepted among physicists, though many say the idea is interesting. The theory was proposed 10 years ago in an attempt to reconcile difference between the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Researchers claim it highlights flaws in the Big Bang theory, which suggests the universe was born about 13.8 billion years ago when an infinitely dense point - known as a 'singularity' - exploded. According to Einstein's general relativity, huge objects warp space-time so that anything travelling through it, such as light (regardless of its frequency), takes a curving path. The Big Bang theory was formulated in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of high density and temperature. Researchers claim it highlights flaws in the Big Bang theory, which suggests the universe was born about 13.8 billion years ago when an infinitely dense point - known as a singularity - exploded In the rainbow theory however, 'particles with different energies will actually see different space-times, different gravitational fields,’ Adel Awad of the Centre for Theoretical Physics at Zewail City of Science and Technology in Egypt told Scientific American. Writing in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, researchers found two possible beginnings to the universe based on slightly different interpretations of the consequences of rainbow gravity. One result would be that if you retrace time backward, the universe gets denser, approaching an infinite density but never quite reaching it. In the other scenario the universe reaches an extremely high density that's finite and then plateaus. Professor Awad claims that in both scenarios, tracing the path of matter and light in the universe will not cause us to arrive at an infinitely small point of origin, known as the Big Bang Over the next few years, scientists plan to study gamma-ray bursts and other cosmic eventsfor signs of rainbow gravity effects. The theory’s name comes from a suggestion that gravity's effect on the cosmos is felt differently by varying wavelengths of light, which can be found in the colours of the rainbow. The theory was proposed 10 years ago in an attempt to reconcile difference between the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Researchers claim it highlights flaws in the Big Bang theory, which suggests the universe was born about 13.8 billion years ago when an infinitely dense point - known as a 'singularity' - exploded. According to Einstein's general relativity, huge objects warp space-time so that anything travelling through it, such as light (regardless of its frequency), takes a curving path. The Big Bang theory was formulated in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann. Friedmann began with Einstein's equations of general relativity and found a solution to those equations in which the universe began in a state of high density and temperature Over the next few years, scientists plan to study gamma-ray bursts and other cosmic events for signs of rainbow gravity effects............................. As Dr Karl just mentioned , we accept certain facts until we gather new information that blows those facts apart , the next generation of space telescopes should give us further information on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Definitely an interesting theory...might be an easier read if you clean up the repetitive OP though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 Definitely an interesting theory...might be an easier read if you clean up the repetitive OP though. Sorry mate , my 9 month old son Lachie insists on "helping" his dad post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derp... Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Why can't we just settle on how the universe was created. No matter how many scientists create new theories, someone will come along and disprove whatever they come up with. Fact is We Don't Know how it was created scientifically. Can't we just chalk it up to the big guy? What would we even do if there was a scientific reason for the creation of the universe? Try and make another one? It's just a popularity contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Why can't we just settle on how the universe was created. No matter how many scientists create new theories, someone will come along and disprove whatever they come up with. Fact is We Don't Know how it was created scientifically. Can't we just chalk it up to the big guy? What would we even do if there was a scientific reason for the creation of the universe? Try and make another one? It's just a popularity contest. Because with that kind of attitude towards scientific discovery you wouldn't have technology available to post the ignorant blather in your post on a globally accessible, electronic message forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Why can't we just settle on how the universe was created. No matter how many scientists create new theories, someone will come along and disprove whatever they come up with. Fact is We Don't Know how it was created scientifically. Can't we just chalk it up to the big guy? What would we even do if there was a scientific reason for the creation of the universe? Try and make another one? It's just a popularity contest. Or girl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 So it sounds like a bit of a fringe explanation to marry quantum mechanics and general relativity, but is not based on any empirical evidence yet. I'll remain skeptical until we actually do get that empirical evidence. The Scientific Amaerican article would probably have been a better one to post. The one posted here has a lot of the hallmarks of how the mainstream media often botches science reporting http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rainbow-gravity-universe-beginning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Or girl? Or transsexual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 So it sounds like a bit of a fringe explanation to marry quantum mechanics and general relativity, but is not based on any empirical evidence yet. I'll remain skeptical until we actually do get that empirical evidence. The Scientific Amaerican article would probably have been a better one to post. The one posted here has a lot of the hallmarks of how the mainstream media often botches science reporting http://www.scientifi...verse-beginning I try to keep it simple so people can at least grasp the concept, thanks for posting the link , I should have done that for people like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 Chalk it up to the big guy! that's what dumb people say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 I can never take these articles about physics without a bucket of salt but then I don't understand a single word or the methodology when I try to read the original papers they are reporting results from. I feel illiterate At your best you are a highly intelligent poster , people like you and your fella give me hope for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 I try to keep it simple so people can at least grasp the concept, thanks for posting the link , I should have done that for people like you. Scientific American is still popular science for ordinary people. It's not like I suggested posting the scientific papers the articles are based on Edit: and it's not like I'm sort of physicist. I don't have anything more than a rudimentary understanding of physics and just reading the abstract of papers about stuff like this makes my head hurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 I plan to start an online cat gift exchange program. Are you with me? I like people who are kind to animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted December 13, 2013 Share Posted December 13, 2013 I just hope we can figure it all out before the crows do: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted December 13, 2013 Author Share Posted December 13, 2013 Scientific American is still popular science for ordinary people. It's not like I suggested posting the scientific papers the articles are based on Edit: and it's not like I'm sort of physicist. I don't have anything more than a rudimentary understanding of physics and just reading the abstract of papers about stuff like this makes my head hurt All my life I have had to dumb it down , when I first left school one of the guys I hung out with carried a dictionary around with him to verify some of the words I used actually existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobble Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Why can't we just settle on how the universe was created. No matter how many scientists create new theories, someone will come along and disprove whatever they come up with. Fact is We Don't Know how it was created scientifically. Can't we just chalk it up to the big guy? What would we even do if there was a scientific reason for the creation of the universe? Try and make another one? It's just a popularity contest. Mankind wouldn't have surpassed the Stone age if everyone thought like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusclePharm Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Seems intersting but im more of a multi universe type Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 That funny cause I just saw this: http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffereee01&utm_medium=facebook Theory the universe is a hologram...damn you sometimes crazy science trying to figuring out the universe and the origins of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 Interesting stuff. Once they get rolling I would like to hear how they reconcile this theory with the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobble Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 My theory is that the universe is a double-rainbow hologram on the butt of parallel unicorns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.