Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

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


key2thecup

Recommended Posts

This new theory doesn't disprove the Big Bang theory though. All indications still point to their being one, and a history of the universe 'as we know it.'

But what it does do is put forth the notion that a singularity wasn't required to have the Big Bang, and that the universe existed forever, (before the Big Bang, as a kind of quantum potential).

I think the Big Crash theory is put into peril though.

big bang theory makes no sense because how can all that the universe contains spread out from a point smaller than an atom?

The only reason it's the main theory is because scientists have studied the movement of galaxies and stars and they all are moving out from the same direction and when they did the math bringing them all backwards it comes to one point.

What they fail to consider is that what if the universe is bigger than they think it is? What if there is a galaxy that we can't see with our telescope stationed in space that is moving in a different direction? What if only the galaxies around us are the ones moving in the same direction and the ones that aren't are too far away to be seen?

If its the case it disproves the entire big bang theory. Truth is we just don't know. We need the most advanced technology to find the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still partial to the theory that the universe is like a giant elastic, it expands to as large as it can be and then retracts back to a singularity and explodes and expands, forever repeating the cycle.

If that were the case why is the speed the universe is expanding at increasing and why is everything spreading out from each other becoming less and less cluttered.

Its so crazy when you think about it, it can expand forever and gets faster as it does. Defies everything we think of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The religious folks simply argue that God himself has "always existed", as they do now. Anyone who finds that far fetched and scoffs at it "How can something ALWAYS exist? Everything has a beginning!" would then need to also scoff at this notion that the universe existed forever as well.

Human beings made god to explain the unexplained. Back in the day god made human beings get born not anything else . back in the day god made the earth. Back in the day god made life.

Right now we have no outright explanation for the creation of the universe so god made iT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This a simulation of the dynamics of a single quanta of tetrahedron space one of the questions asked below the video is mind blowing

" Does a basic tetrahedron structure in fabric of space time enable spin and attraction of energy ? "

If an omnipotent being (God) created the entire physical and obviously then spiritual planes..... who, what ,where, when, how and most importantly why was this God created ? Did God magically appear out of no where ? Was God born form some other plane. Was this God manifested ? Where does the essence of the all powerful creator then come from ?

Creationists need to ask themselves did God come from nothing ? How is this possible ? If there is a non physical plane of existence where a 3 dimensional plane can be manifested then we may have a place to start looking but as of yet......

In our physical universe we have a set of laws that we have learned. So far these scientific laws prove the current dynamics of space and time. Also they prove the elements we have discovered to exist in our current physical universe.

So is there one iota of proof to back up creationism. NO. There is no rational explanation that can be given if one chooses to believe in an omnipotent being that created the Heavens and the earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if we move the guitar away from the speaker?

John Wheeler, scientist and dreamer, colleague of Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, mentor to many of today's leading physicists, and the man who chose the name "black hole" to describe the unimaginably dense, light-trapping objects now thought to be common throughout the universe, turned 90 last July. He is one of the last of the towering figures of 20th-century physics, a member of the generation that plumbed the mysteries of quantum mechanics and limned the utmost reaches of space and time. After a lifetime of fundamental contributions in fields ranging from atomic physics to cosmology, Wheeler has concerned himself in his later years with what he calls "ideas for ideas."

Wheeler's hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well. To illustrate his idea, he devised what he calls his "delayed-choice experiment," which adds a startling, cosmic variation to a cornerstone of quantum physics: the classic two-slit experiment.

That experiment is exceedingly strange in its own right, even without Wheeler's extra kink thrown in. It illustrates a key principle of quantum mechanics: Light has a dual nature. Sometimes light behaves like a compact particle, a photon; sometimes it seems to behave like a wave spread out in space, just like the ripples in a pond. In the experiment, light — a stream of photons — shines through two parallel slits and hits a strip of photographic film behind the slits. The experiment can be run two ways: with photon detectors right beside each slit that allow physicists to observe the photons as they pass, or with detectors removed, which allows the photons to travel unobserved. When physicists use the photon detectors, the result is unsurprising: Every photon is observed to pass through one slit or the other. The photons, in other words, act like particles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still partial to the theory that the universe is like a giant elastic, it expands to as large as it can be and then retracts back to a singularity and explodes and expands, forever repeating the cycle.

That'd be satisfying on a poetic and spiritual level, but it's a model that doesn't hold all that well.

Looks like half the posts already are "God is/isn't real" rather than about the theory in the OP.

I'm still waiting for someone to make a time machine so we can go back and see for ourselves. Seems to be the best way of going about it.

Simply looking into space is observing the past. Information only travels at the speed of light, so observations from 13+ billion light years away get closer to the very beginning of our universe. The more robust our instruments of observation become, the more detailed the look into it we get is. Just wait for the James Webb Telescope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just happened to watch this doco last night

Really fascinating stuff , if you do not know anything about inflation this is a good primer.

What is even more fascinating is some of the proponents of multiverses are claiming there should be some observeable phenomena to back their claims and they have found evidence of said phenomena.

For any one interested in this subject this program is a must see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This a simulation of the dynamics of a single quanta of tetrahedron space one of the questions asked below the video is mind blowing

" Does a basic tetrahedron structure in fabric of space time enable spin and attraction of energy ? "

If an omnipotent being (God) created the entire physical and obviously then spiritual planes..... who, what ,where, when, how and most importantly why was this God created ? Did God magically appear out of no where ? Was God born form some other plane. Was this God manifested ? Where does the essence of the all powerful creator then come from ?

Creationists need to ask themselves did God come from nothing ? How is this possible ? If there is a non physical plane of existence where a 3 dimensional plane can be manifested then we may have a place to start looking but as of yet......

In our physical universe we have a set of laws that we have learned. So far these scientific laws prove the current dynamics of space and time. Also they prove the elements we have discovered to exist in our current physical universe.

So is there one iota of proof to back up creationism. NO. There is no rational explanation that can be given if one chooses to believe in an omnipotent being that created the Heavens and the earth.

There is lots of proof, you just have to look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that were the case why is the speed the universe is expanding at increasing and why is everything spreading out from each other becoming less and less cluttered.

Its so crazy when you think about it, it can expand forever and gets faster as it does. Defies everything we think of.

That's part of the problem here on earth. We have our physics and believe everything has to stay within that box, but when you step off the planet, physics flies out the window.

Black holes, the sun etc... and those are just a few things we can see on the close. Who knows what else is out there that can challenge our 'laws'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would sincerely love to look at some of these proofs if you want to share some ? Care to take a stab at any of my questions though ?

There are a lot of docs written by people smarter than us whose sole objective was to disprove the Bible and God's existence only to become believer's. Scientists and atheists who travelled to the middle east. I am happy to recommend one of those, but you won't read it for any plethora of reasons, mostly fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's part of the problem here on earth. We have our physics and believe everything has to stay within that box, but when you step off the planet, physics flies out the window.

Black holes, the sun etc... and those are just a few things we can see on the close. Who knows what else is out there that can challenge our 'laws'.

what's hilarious about your reasoning is that if you believe physics contains many question begging problems, the same applies to religious beliefs as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of docs written by people smarter than us whose sole objective was to disprove the Bible and God's existence only to become believer's. Scientists and atheists who travelled to the middle east. I am happy to recommend one of those, but you won't read it for any plethora of reasons, mostly fear.

I would absolutely love to see some of these docs. If only for amusement's sake. Mostly I expect some preaching-to-the-choir nonsense. I patiently await being proven wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of docs written by people smarter than us whose sole objective was to disprove the Bible and God's existence only to become believer's. Scientists and atheists who travelled to the middle east. I am happy to recommend one of those, but you won't read it for any plethora of reasons, mostly fear.

That's a hasty generalization. Just because some intelligent people have become persuaded (by whatever motivation) doesn't entail that they are actually correct in their beliefs and therefore we should generalize the same to most intelligent people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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