Posted on 06/24/2014 2:21:50 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The universe shouldn't exist — at least according to a new theory.
Modeling of conditions soon after the Big Bang suggests the universe should have collapsed just microseconds after its explosive birth, the new study suggests.
"During the early universe, we expected cosmic inflation — this is a rapid expansion of the universe right after the Big Bang," said study co-author Robert Hogan, a doctoral candidate in physics at King's College in London. "This expansion causes lots of stuff to shake around, and if we shake it too much, we could go into this new energy space, which could cause the universe to collapse."
Physicists draw that conclusion from a model that accounts for the properties of the newly discovered Higgs boson particle, which is thought to explain how other particles get their mass; faint traces of gravitational waves formed at the universe's origin also inform the conclusion. [Doomsday: The 9 Real Ways Earth Could End]
Of course, there must be something missing from these calculations.
"We are here talking about it," Hogan told Live Science. "That means we have to extend our theories to explain why this didn't happen."
So if the universe shouldn't exist, why is it here?
"The generic expectation is that there must be some new physics that we haven't put in our theories yet, because we haven't been able to discover them," Hogan said.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Sounds like the “New” Theory has some issues...
Like Global Warming. Maybe your model is wrong?
Last week scientists said genders don’t really exist. Now the universe shouldn’t exist.
No wonder man is responsible for killing the planet with global warming!
If the nucleus of an atom is essentially a positive charge and the circling electrons are negative .... only the finger of GOD keeps the thing from imploding
I figured THAT out in 7th grade.
RE: Last week scientists said genders don’t really exist.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/american-medical-association-says-gender-is-imaginary/
The AMA said that.
Are members of the AMA scientists?
“The generic expectation is that there must be some new physics that we haven’t put in our theories yet, because we haven’t been able to discover them,” Hogan said.
See? This is how a real scientist talks. He is not afraid to admit there are things scientists just don’t know, or that theories, even ones that are well established, can have holes in them.
That’s the difference between a scientist and a believer in scientism.
Well, then I guess it doesn’t. We’re supposed to accept theories as “settled science,” right?
I think it was in the early 1950s that aerospace engineers concluded that the bumble bee could, indeed, fly. One of the major helicopter improvements came from the aeronautical science which supported this conclusion.
Medical doctors aren’t scientists?
Or does being a scientist imply RESEARCH science?
God is real, and His creations are real, so I trust scientists will get this little matter figured out, and if they don’t, no big deal. We’ll still be here to debate it.
A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.
Not sure if members of the AMA are doing that today.
Not even sure if the AMA’s pronouncements speak for every member.
“If the nucleus of an atom is essentially a positive charge and the circling electrons are negative .... only the finger of GOD keeps the thing from imploding”
Well, positive and negative electrical charges do not obliterate each other, like matter and antimatter do. They simply strive to achieve equilibrium of charges, which you have in a stable atom. What keeps them from continuing to attract each other until the particles actually collide is probably just the kinetic energy of the electrons. They can’t slow down to come into contact with the nucleus, so the closest they can achieve is a close, stable orbit.
The Universe exists because “I AM” ....
You don’t know what you don’t know!
“That means we have to extend our theories to explain why this didn’t happen.”
Here’s an idea
G O D
Fair enough, but the AMA (as the APA before them) make “scientific” declarative statements.
Even the “science” behind global warming scares don’t pass peer review.
RE: You don’t know what you don’t know!
Yep, and I also know what I don’t know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.