Thanks rdl6989. The whole universe was not in a hot, dense state 14 billion years ago...
· String Theory Ping List ·
· Join · Bookmark · Topics · Google ·
· View or Post in 'blog · post a topic · subscribe ·
Posted on 02/26/2015 11:50:10 AM PST by Mount Athos
Two physicists are trying to revive one of the great debates of twentieth-century science, arguing that the Big Bang may never have happened. Their work presents a radically different vision of the universe from the one cosmologists now work with.
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," says Dr. Ahmed Farag Ali of Benha University, Egypt. In collaboration with Professor Saurya Das of the University of Lethbridge, Canada, Ali has created a series of equations that describe a universe much like Hoyle's; one without a beginning or end.
They found that when using Bohm's work to make quantum corrections to Raychaudhuri's equation on the formation of singularities, they described a universe that was once much smaller, but never had the infinite density currently postulated.
Das and Ali propose that the universe is filled with a quantum fluid made up of gravitons, particles that probably have no mass themselves but transmit gravity the way photons carry electromagnetism. The follow-up paper suggests that in the early universe these gravitons would have formed a Bose-Einstein condensate, a collection of particles that display quantum phenomena at the macroscopic scale. Moreover, the paper argues that this condensate could cause the universe's expansion to accelerate, and so explain dark energy, and might one day be the only surviving component of the universe.
Although Das and Ali's vision appears to resolve a number of problems with the dominant cosmological models, it still requires extensive elaboration to test whether it has even larger problems of its own.
(Excerpt) Read more at iflscience.com ...
It’s alright with me if they refine their theories over time, I fully understand that. I have an engineering degree and therefore “some” exposure to “science”, to say the least.
What I object to is when they politicize “science” and use it as a bludgeon to make everyone behave and consume in the manner that they deem “best”.
Hmmm, the article mentions gravitons, and a condensate. Makes me wonder if they’re bringing up the old fashioned concept called aether. Supposedly Einstein couldn’t get his relativity theory to work with it, so he just left it out.
Being liberal isn’t being right, it’s about FEELING righteous that you are doing SOMETHING. Even it turns out to be not only ineffective, but destructive.
Quantum entanglement is what’s prompting it.
An atheist will tell you that the universe just happened to happen. Voila!
I always thought the Old Testament pretty neatly described a big bang creation of the universe.
BB should have been rejected on day one on purely philosophical grounds; having all the mass of the universe concentrated to a point would be the mother of all black holes and nothing would ever “bang” its way out of that. That’s before you even get to Halton Arp and the demise of the idea of an expanding universe altogether of course...
“.........politicize “science” and use it as a bludgeon to make everyone behave and consume in the manner that they deem “best”.”
Exactly.
Nope.
Don’t really want to be.
I’m not at all certain that the plasma physics folks are right. I just think that the way the cosmologists keep having to invent more and more kludges to make their numbers work suggests that they’re missing something fundamental.
Remember Plato and his epicycles and his epicycles on epicycles. And Copernicus wasn’t any better. He still had circles and epicycles and epicycles. Then Kepler said ellipse, and suddenly everything was simple and elegant.
I have no expectation that the plasma physicists will be proven right. But I’m convinced that there’s a much simpler answer out there, and once someone finds it, everyone is going to be wondering why they missed it.
Gospel of John finishes what the Old Testament starts.
In the beginning was the Word.
So far, the real science has remained consistent with Christianity in every extent that we have the ability to evaluate.
Carbon 14 dating, apparently, is having its issues as an accurate way of dating things.
The more we are sure of something, the more likely it seems we find out our first appreciation of things was off somehow.
Forget this quibbling over minor things and concentrate on more important questions like how is it possible for bumble bees to fly?
Thanks rdl6989. The whole universe was not in a hot, dense state 14 billion years ago...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raychaudhuri_equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amal_Kumar_Raychaudhuri
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Landau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm
http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.htm
http://www.david-bohm.net/
Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm
http://www.amazon.com/Wholeness-Implicate-Order-David-Bohm/dp/0415289793
We are obviously in the midst of an explosion.
If you roll the explosion back, continuously, don’t you reach a point where the explosion started?
This new “theory” doesn’t seem to even address that simple but obvious question.
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.