Skip to comments.
Another ‘settled science’ topic is not so settled after all – Big Bang theory questioned
wattsupwiththat.com ^
| February 10, 2015
| Anthony Watts
Posted on 02/10/2015 10:47:12 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Weve all heard of the claim of settled science when it comes to global warming/climate change, and weve all heard of the Big Bang Theory, and Im not just talking about the popular TV show. The scientific theory goes all the way back to 1927.
This is an artists concept of the metric expansion of space, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe) is represented at each time by the circular sections. Note on the left the dramatic expansion (not to scale) occurring in the inflationary epoch, and at the center the expansion acceleration. The scheme is decorated with WMAP images on the left and with the representation of stars at the appropriate level of development. Credit: NASA
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe. It states that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point from which the Universe has been expanding ever since. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the Universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe going forward from that point on. (Source: Wikipedia)
Now, it seems theres a challenge to this settled science, and a new quantum equation predicts the universe has no beginning.
(Phys.org) The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einsteins theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a Big Bang did the universe officially begin.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately afternot at or beforethe singularity.
The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there, Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp
h/t to Rick McKee
TOPICS: Astronomy; Science
KEYWORDS: bigbangtheory; stringtheory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I have always had a problem with the idea that time has a beginning.
41
posted on
02/11/2015 5:04:44 AM PST
by
lormand
(Inside every liberal is a dung slinging monkey)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Planck scale dynamics. Very interesting.
Thanks for posting.
42
posted on
02/11/2015 5:12:15 AM PST
by
onedoug
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
One thing that unsettles physicists....
...what if all the constants (Plank, gravitation, c, Bohr’s radius, and so on) are NOT constant throughout time?
Physics and chemistry would break down, and we could never know how things behaved.
43
posted on
02/11/2015 5:15:26 AM PST
by
Lazamataz
(With friends like Boehner, we don't need Democrats. -- Laz A. Mataz, 2015)
To: GunRunner
Problem there is that Genesis said the Earth came before light (stars), so we know that cant be true.Different kinda Bible you got there.
I always read that God's first act was "Let there be light."
44
posted on
02/11/2015 5:16:44 AM PST
by
Lazamataz
(With friends like Boehner, we don't need Democrats. -- Laz A. Mataz, 2015)
To: RoadGumby
More likely that the guy(s) who wrote Genesis didn’t know that heavier elements come from stars, hence stars before planets.
To: Lazamataz
You should read the Bible again. First line of the whole book is “in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.” Light came after.
To: Bullish; RoadGumby
Theory is the highest level of “proof” in science. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity corrected Newton’s Laws of Motion. The device you’re using to read this is a result of the application of circuit theory.
You may want to better understand the difference between Theory and Hypothesis.
47
posted on
02/11/2015 5:27:03 AM PST
by
muir_redwoods
("He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative." G.K .C)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Deut. 29:29
There’s a point to the Biblical revelation that goes beyond tickling our intellectual curiosity - it’s to hear, respond in faith and save your soul.
That same revelation tells us that the Jews will return to Israel and be back in their land before the time of the End of the Age and be surrounded by her enemies. Prophecy is being fulfilled right before our eyes but people don’t even see it. We better start worrying about the Big Bang that’s coming at the end not the beginning.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
What surprised me the most, was the names of the individuals who submitted this.
49
posted on
02/11/2015 5:40:48 AM PST
by
Paradox
(and now here we are....)
To: Paradox
We’ve reached a previously unimaginable point where science could be just another method to enhance the prestige of Islam, so I wouldn’t be placing any bets on these Egyptians being correct.
50
posted on
02/11/2015 5:50:43 AM PST
by
jjotto
("Ya could look it up!")
To: GunRunner
First line of the whole book is in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.Dude, you are so confused. My Bible goes: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth, but before that, God created Light."
My Bible is better than yours.
51
posted on
02/11/2015 6:17:18 AM PST
by
Lazamataz
(With friends like Boehner, we don't need Democrats. -- Laz A. Mataz, 2015)
To: Lazamataz
Then what did he create in Gen. 1:3? Light beer?
To: I want the USA back
The big bang is not an adequate explanation for the origin of the Universe. It is more adequate than any other explanation.
The "Big Bang Theory" will stand until a more "adequate" theory disproves it. So far, nothing.
53
posted on
02/11/2015 6:35:11 AM PST
by
MosesKnows
(Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe.)
To: I want the USA back
I’m curious how you could have sufficient knowledge to make that declaration?
54
posted on
02/11/2015 6:41:33 AM PST
by
MHGinTN
(Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
To: Candor7
” Its clear that science is not yet sophisticated enough to actually understand how existant/non existant time, space, form and energy as well as love interact to form this cosmos.”
Heck no, but nothing stops them these days : )
55
posted on
02/11/2015 7:45:43 AM PST
by
stephenjohnbanker
(My Batting Average( 1,000) (GOPe is that easy to read))
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Watch it; you’ll make the Catholics mad. As they never tire of reminding us, the “big bang” was their idea.
To: GunRunner
Bud Lite.
And He saw that it was good.
But not as good as Guinness.
57
posted on
02/11/2015 8:11:01 AM PST
by
Lazamataz
(With friends like Boehner, we don't need Democrats. -- Laz A. Mataz, 2015)
To: Candor7
A sea turtle ye says? Just a swimmin' through space?
And what is it them elephants eat just a standin' there for all time on the turtle's back?
58
posted on
02/11/2015 9:15:48 AM PST
by
TigersEye
(ISIS is the tip of the spear. The spear is Islam.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
To: muir_redwoods
“You may want to better understand the difference between Theory and Hypothesis.”
Nice to know someone knows the difference. Most so-called scientists today are constantly calling their hypotheses theories. It’s maddening.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson