Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Big Bang not the start? Quantum theory suggests universe has existed forever

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • shunyadragon
    replied
    An interesting layman's explanation of the new research and mathematical modeling that indicates our physical existence is likely eternal.

    Source: http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/scientists.say.no.big.bang.just.eternity/48506.htm



    ALBERTA, Canada (Christian Examiner) -- Scientists calculating corrections to the mathematics of quantum physics relating to Einstein's special theory of relativity have proposed the universe did not originate with a big bang as once thought, but is infinite, or eternal.

    Even in the big bang theory, scientists have concluded matter and energy pre-existed, but that a break in all deterministic laws of space, time and matter, known as a gravitational singularity, caused all matter to collect into a dense concentration and then quantum fluctuations, which are brief changes in energy, caused a rapid expansion, or explosion (described as inflation), creating the present-day universe.

    But scientists at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, and the Center for Fundamental Physics in Giza, Egypt, are proposing a mathematical fix which better explains what is observed about space and time with regard to how the universe came to exist in its present state.

    Importantly, all theories for understanding the origins of the universe are based on mathematical modelling. Observed phenomena are interpreted with formulations, and, calculations are altered to add or remove constants or other factors in order to explain ongoing discoveries,

    © Copyright Original Source

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    While interesting, I don't see 'existence' beyond the BB a very meaningful term since all there is as far as we are concerned, including time itself, began relative to this universe with that event. And especially Theologically. The beginning of Genesis 1 is NOT God's beginning. It is ours (this universes). God is clearly present 'before' that, and is implied to exist 'after' it. As long as THIS universe, THIS existence we live and move in 'began', then there is no conflict with scripture on that front if there is in fact 'more' than that out there.
    Jim
    It is not the fact that our physical existence is finite or infinite is ultimately the issue as far as science is concerned. It is unlikely that science will be able to reach back beyond 1 plank second to how our universe began or did not begin. It is the physical nature of the Quantum World that is the issue. It is likely that the Quantum world that fills the spaces between the stars, dust and galaxies is the Quantum World we came from.

    There are many models, and some predict different beginnings and some no beginning at as the one that is the subject of this thread.

    Yes an infinite cosmos with many universe is compatible with God and Creation.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    There is nothing conclusive as to whether the cosmos is finite or infinite. It remains an open unknown question. Those models like the BVG do not consider the beginning of universes as absolute beginnings, but one of many perhaps countless beginnings.
    Except you are completely wrong, the BVG theory can not get us to an eternal past, and does in fact point to an "absolute" beginning, at least according to Vilenkin himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

    This model is quite viable and sound at present and concludes there is not likely a beginning nor ending of anything.
    No Shuny, it is just another idea with no actual physical evidence. I mean last year you were touting the BVG theory, then you jumped over to Steinhardt's Cyclic Universe, then quantum tunneling out of a scalar field, and now this new theory.... I mean you will latch on to almost anything to show that matter and energy are eternal, as your religious faith teaches.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    There is nothing conclusive as to whether the cosmos is finite or infinite. It remains an open unknown question. Those models like the BVG do not consider the beginning of universes as absolute beginnings, but one of many perhaps countless beginnings.

    This model is quite viable and sound at present and concludes there is not likely a beginning nor ending of anything.
    While interesting, I don't see 'existence' beyond the BB a very meaningful term since all there is as far as we are concerned, including time itself, began relative to this universe with that event. And especially Theologically. The beginning of Genesis 1 is NOT God's beginning. It is ours (this universes). God is clearly present 'before' that, and is implied to exist 'after' it. As long as THIS universe, THIS existence we live and move in 'began', then there is no conflict with scripture on that front if there is in fact 'more' than that out there.


    Jim

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Nonsense Shuny, first the BVG theory is not in the least dated. Scientists are still looking for the gravitational waves that point to inflation. Second, my point all along is that there is no evidence for eternal matter and energy, we only have evidence for this universe, and there is no evidence that this universe is past-eternal. Just the opposite, everything points to a finite cosmos that began 15 billion years ago.
    There is nothing conclusive as to whether the cosmos is finite or infinite. It remains an open unknown question. Those models like the BVG do not consider the beginning of universes as absolute beginnings, but one of many perhaps countless beginnings.

    This model is quite viable and sound at present and concludes there is not likely a beginning nor ending of anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    I am trying to remember if seer has asserted that the universe had a beginning of some sort as fact or wrote posts as though he believed that to be true. Unfortunately, you didn't cite any of his posts. You do have a problem with not citing anything, one's posts or the scientific literature.
    I believe seer's last post answered your question. I DO NOT have a problem here, seer does.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    No problem, there is many years of history of seer and this issue. The post stands.

    The argument goes back to several threads some years ago the seer argued that the BVG theory proposed that every possible universe and every possible multiverse had a finite beginning. It is true the BVG theory is a bit dated in terms cosmology models, certain aspects remain possibly valid. There are times when seer argues theories in science to prove his agenda, but in the end he rejects the science of cosmology and origins of our existence, and a lot of other science along the way.
    Nonsense Shuny, first the BVG theory is not in the least dated. Scientists are still looking for the gravitational waves that point to inflation. Second, my point all along is that there is no evidence for eternal matter and energy, we only have evidence for this universe, and there is no evidence that this universe is past-eternal. Just the opposite, everything points to a finite cosmos that began 15 billion years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    I am trying to remember if seer has asserted that the universe had a beginning of some sort as fact or wrote posts as though he believed that to be true. Unfortunately, you didn't cite any of his posts. You do have a problem with not citing anything, one's posts or the scientific literature.
    No problem, there is many years of history of seer and this issue. The post stands.

    The argument goes back to several threads some years ago the seer argued that the BVG theory proposed that every possible universe and every possible multiverse had a finite beginning. It is true the BVG theory is a bit dated in terms cosmology models, certain aspects remain possibly valid. There are times when seer argues theories in science to prove his agenda, but in the end he rejects the science of cosmology and origins of our existence, and a lot of other science along the way.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-03-2015, 09:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I brought this up again for seer's benefit. All the questions concerning the origins of our universe are not answered yet. Only some models describe our universe having a beginning of any kind, and then again, none of these models describe the Big Bang as an absolute beginning.

    It is seer that needs to stop fantasizing that science describes our universe as a known beginning.
    I am trying to remember if seer has asserted that the universe had a beginning of some sort as fact or wrote posts as though he believed that to be true. Unfortunately, you didn't cite any of his posts. You do have a problem with not citing anything, one's posts or the scientific literature.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    I brought this up again for seer's benefit. All the questions concerning the origins of our universe are not answered yet. Only some models describe our universe having a beginning of any kind, and then again, none of these models describe the Big Bang as an absolute beginning.

    It is seer that needs to stop fantasizing that science describes our universe as a known beginning.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    So brave, shunya. Get ready to duck.

    Is this the item you were referring to:

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/big-bang-no...orever-1487517
    Yes, this is the release that described the research. Actually I have believed this is the best scenario for an explanation of the nature of our physical existence. I believe this is more in support of the existence of a multiverse and not whether our universe began as an event or it is possibly some sort of a series of cyclic universes.

    I consider the research that our universe is expanding through an infinite and eternal Quantum World or Matrix, which is the same Matrix that surrounds the universe in a multiverse. This Multiverse could possible be one of an infinite number of Multiverses.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Source: big-bang-not-start-quantum-theory-suggests-universe-has-existed-forever-1487517



    Big Bang not the start? Quantum theory suggests universe has existed forever

    The Big Bang did not mark the start of the universe, instead there was no beginning and there will be no end, scientists have suggested.

    Physicists from the University of Lethbridge in Canada and Benha University in Egypt have created a new model that applies quantum correction terms to Einstein's theory of general relativity.

    Einstein's theory predicts the universe came from an infinitely dense single point that then exploded outwards the Big Bang. However, this state singularity creates a number of problems for scientists, including the fact it does not account for what happened before or at the moment of the Big Bang.

    The physicists have now incorporated principles from quantum mechanics that suggest the universe could have always existed in a "quantum potential". This, in turn, could have eventually collapsed in the hot explosion that was the Big Bang.

    Published in Physics Letters B, the scientists also say their model could account for dark matter and dark energy.

    The scientists combined the work of David Bohm, who in the 1950s looked to use quantum theory to describe the shortest paths between two points on a curved surface, and Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri, who worked on the formation of singularities.

    Using a quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, they were able to create new equations to describe the expansion and evolution of the universe within general relativity. They showed that quantum particles can never meet or cross paths, phys.org explains.

    © Copyright Original Source

    So brave, shunya. Get ready to duck.

    Is this the item you were referring to:

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/big-bang-no...orever-1487517

    Leave a comment:


  • Big Bang not the start? Quantum theory suggests universe has existed forever

    Source: big-bang-not-start-quantum-theory-suggests-universe-has-existed-forever-1487517



    Big Bang not the start? Quantum theory suggests universe has existed forever

    The Big Bang did not mark the start of the universe, instead there was no beginning and there will be no end, scientists have suggested.

    Physicists from the University of Lethbridge in Canada and Benha University in Egypt have created a new model that applies quantum correction terms to Einstein's theory of general relativity.

    Einstein's theory predicts the universe came from an infinitely dense single point that then exploded outwards the Big Bang. However, this state singularity creates a number of problems for scientists, including the fact it does not account for what happened before or at the moment of the Big Bang.

    The physicists have now incorporated principles from quantum mechanics that suggest the universe could have always existed in a "quantum potential". This, in turn, could have eventually collapsed in the hot explosion that was the Big Bang.

    Published in Physics Letters B, the scientists also say their model could account for dark matter and dark energy.

    The scientists combined the work of David Bohm, who in the 1950s looked to use quantum theory to describe the shortest paths between two points on a curved surface, and Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri, who worked on the formation of singularities.

    Using a quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, they were able to create new equations to describe the expansion and evolution of the universe within general relativity. They showed that quantum particles can never meet or cross paths, phys.org explains.

    © Copyright Original Source

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 02:51 PM
7 responses
39 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by shunyadragon, 09-21-2021, 07:42 AM
42 responses
181 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 09-18-2021, 08:59 AM
19 responses
95 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Sparko, 09-15-2021, 11:13 AM
23 responses
86 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by rogue06, 09-14-2021, 07:34 AM
1 response
18 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X