Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

No Big Bang? New physics model shows universe might have existed forever

key2thecup

By key2thecup
in Off-Topic General

Recommended Posts

key2thecup Canucks Regular

key2thecup

Posted
Posted

New physics model shows universe might have existed forever

The big bang theory is the most popular origin story for the universe. General relativity estimates that the universe is around 13.8 billion years old and began as an infinitely dense point—a singularity. This point contained all the matter in existence. The moment when it finally exploded, rapidly expanding into the universe we know and live in, is called the Big Bang.

The problem with this theory is that the math used can only explain what happened after the Big Bang, not what happened before or during the event.

A new model offers an alternative explanation; that the universe may have existed forever, with no beginning or end. The new model, which also accounts for the existence of dark matter and dark energy, applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” said Ahmed Farag Ali, from Egypt’s Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology.

The study, coauthored by Saurya Das from the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada and published in the journal Physics Letters B, shows that the problems that arise from the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their model.

The “quantum correction terms” are based on the work of theoretical physicist David Bohm. In the 1950s, Bohm replaced classical geodesics (the shortest path from one point to another on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.

Ali and Das applied these trajectories to an equation developed by physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri, and then derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations. These equations describe the expansion and evolution of the universe within the context of general relativity. This new model also doesn’t predict a “Big Crunch,” where the universe collapses in on itself and condenses into a singularity again.

According to the researchers, the new model avoids singularities because of one property of Bohmian trajectories. At some point, classical geodesics cross each other. At each intersection is a singularity. On the other hand, Bohmian trajectories never cross.

According to Das’ and Ali’s model, the universe is filled with quantum fluid that might be composed of gravitons—massless hypothetical particles that mediate gravitational force.

“It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once,” Das said, referring to the fact that not only can the new model resolve the Big Bang singularity, but it can also account for dark matter and dark energy.

A related paper, published in arXiv and co-written by Das and Rajat Bhaduri of McMaster University, Canada, shows that these gravitons can, theoretically, form a Bose-Einstein condensate at temperatures present in the unverse at all epochs. The condensate is named after Albert Einstein and Indian physicist Satyendranath Bose.

But this isn’t the only new hypothesis about the origin of our universe. Another model suggests that there were two different universes created by the Big Bang. Our universe moves forward in time, and the other one moves backwards. — Bea Montenegro/BM/TJD, GMA News

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/434518/scitech/science/new-physics-model-shows-universe-might-have-existed-forever

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tortorella's Rant Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Tortorella's Rant

Posted
Posted

Very interesting. If this is true, I think it disproves the God hypothesis even more. If the universe always existed then why would there be a creator? Granted, the Big Bang Theory doesn't need a God, but it's easier to argue that God created the Big Bang.

Unfortunately it's going to give the anti-science retards all the more reason to go "science doesn't know anything! it changes all the time! blah blah blah".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DonaldBrashear Canucks Regular

DonaldBrashear

Posted
Posted

By the way, the one thing that is irrefutable (based on the fact that we are here) is that one of two things either happened:

1) There was a beginning. In that case, you have to accept that something was created from nothing

2) There was no beginning. In that case, you have to accept that something has existed forever and had no beginning

So either way, logic as we know it is defied and our minds are blown. I don't think we would be able to comprehend the truth even if we learned it. Our brains are too small and we are far too inferior. Heck, most people can't even comprehend either of the above scenarios, or the big bang, or that the universe has no up or down, or left or right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kryten Canucks First-Line

Kryten

Posted
Posted

Interesting, I wonder how this will tie in with cosmic expansion?

I knew that was going to be Adams before I scrolled down to the bottom of the post. :lol:

Right now, Ed Robertson is working on a new theme song....

That quote is actually giving me physical pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heretic Canucks All-Star

Heretic

Posted
Posted

Very interesting. If this is true, I think it disproves the God hypothesis even more. If the universe always existed then why would there be a creator? Granted, the Big Bang Theory doesn't need a God, but it's easier to argue that God created the Big Bang.

God has always existed. Alpha/Omega. So that doesn't disprove God, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SabreFan1 Canucks All-Star

SabreFan1

Posted
Posted

Very interesting. If this is true, I think it disproves the God hypothesis even more. If the universe always existed then why would there be a creator? Granted, the Big Bang Theory doesn't need a God, but it's easier to argue that God created the Big Bang.

If the Universe is forever that would mean a supreme being could exist outside of time since according to many scientists, time is a construct created by man.

Science needs to make up it's mind. I doubt that this theory will ever gain traction. They took a universally accepted and proven theory (general relativity) and tweaked it to make their own math work. It reminds me of that scene on the episode of The Big Bang Theory where Leonard took a shot at Sheldon because Sheldon postulated that the Universe has over 20 dimensions just so his math would work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
William_Clarkson Canucks Regular

William_Clarkson

Posted
Posted

If the Universe is forever that would mean a supreme being could exist outside of time since according to many scientists, time is a construct created by man.

Science needs to make up it's mind. I doubt that this theory will ever gain traction. They took a universally accepted and proven theory (general relativity) and tweaked it to make their own math work. It reminds me of that scene on the episode of The Big Bang Theory where Leonard took a shot at Sheldon because Sheldon postulated that the Universe has over 20 dimensions just so his math would work out.

I won't argue whether this theory is true, but the whole point of science is to find out the truth about things. It can't make up it's mind, because it can rarely ever prove things in absolute terms.

To use a really basic example, the formula for kinetic energy was Ek=1/2mv2. However, that was found later not to be accurate (especially at really high speeds) so the new formula became: Ek=(mc2)/(1-v2/c2)-mc2. This formula is said to be accurate at all speeds and although the old formula is still used at low velocities, it is technically always inaccurate to some level (depending on how fast the object is going).

Science is a work in progress and it always will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RUPERTKBD Canucks Hall-of-Famer

RUPERTKBD

Posted
Posted

I won't argue whether this theory is true, but the whole point of science is to find out the truth about things. It can't make up it's mind, because it can rarely ever prove things in absolute terms.

To use a really basic example, the formula for kinetic energy was Ek=1/2mv2. However, that was found later not to be accurate (especially at really high speeds) so the new formula became: Ek=(mc2)/(1-v2/c2)-mc2. This formula is said to be accurate at all speeds and although the old formula is still used at low velocities, it is technically always inaccurate to some level (depending on how fast the object is going).

Science is a work in progress and it always will be.

Yeah, I thought the "make up your mind" thing was a bit strange.

At one point it was believed that the sun revolved around the earth, but then Copernicus came along. Wouldn't have been a great idea to "make up our minds" before that, methinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...