No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[rug]

This is an artist's 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

13 hours ago by Lisa Zyga

(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's 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 after—not at or before—the 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.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

[struggle4progress]

1. I hope the graphic is wrong, because a theory predicting stars first formed 400 million years ago

would grossly conflict with our current geological knowledge: for example, we think we have trilobytes from 500 million years ago

ON EDIT: Ooops! I guess the graphic means 400 million years after the big bang

[Peregrine]

31. Thats 400MY after the big bang

[struggle4progress]

32. Yes: I edited with that correction yesterday

[MannyGoldstein]

2. I heard Roger Penrose being interviewed recently

He now believes that once the Universe expands sufficiently, it sets up the conditions for another Big Bang. And the whole thing starts over.

[rug]

3. Those would be tough experiments to construct.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. True enough! nt

[okasha]

6. Is this another "fluctuating universe" model?

[MannyGoldstein]

8. I don't know what that is.

I'm less than an armchair cosmologist.

IIRC he said that he would need more time than he had in the interview to properly explain it, but had something to do with time being very different in the very-early Universe, which meant that the "instant" of the big bang could have been very spread out in space and time as measured by the time that existed then. Or something like that.

Sorry I can't explain more (and what I did explain is probably dreck.)

[BillZBubb]

4. Big question

Is new matter being formed within this model?

We know pretty accurately the lifetime of various size stars. If the universe is really infinitely old, it should be totally dark with no stars still shining.

The only way to account for the current bright stars in that a source of new matter has produced them.

Also, does the model explain the cosmic background radiation, which is currently interpreted as the "fingerprint" of the big bang.

[mmonk]

10. The background radiation is always in the back of my mind

when I hear cosmologists talk about quantum mechanics. I have heard the term tunneling but still the radiation thingy bounces in my head.

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. Imagine there is no universe where yehi 'or was uttered

It's easy if you try.
No black hole singularity.
No expansion beginning time.

[rug]

16. Thanks. There was a reason I posted this in Religion.

[Agnosticsherbet]

18. Relgion and Cosmology are two major sources of theories about the origin of the univese.

A steady state universe kind of blows holes in both the big bang and the let there be light theories.

[rug]

19. I thought the steady state model has been largely rejected.

Problems with the steady-state theory began to emerge in the late 1960s, when observations apparently supported the idea that the Universe was in fact changing: quasars and radio galaxies were found only at large distances (therefore could have existed only in the distant past), not in closer galaxies. Whereas the Big Bang theory predicted as much, the Steady State theory predicted that such objects would be found throughout the Universe, including close to our own galaxy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/universe/questions_and_ideas/steady_state_theory

Granted, I'm flying by the seat of my pants here.

[Agnosticsherbet]

20. This gives it new life.

I hope I live long enough to try and understand the theory of everything.

[okasha]

55. Not really.

This new model incorporates change over time, and if I understand another post correctly, may imply eithera fluctuating universe (Bang-collapse-Bang-collapse....) or one in which the expansion continues infinitely.

[rogerashton]

30. Not a dichotomy?

I don't think big bang and steady state are the only possibilities.

OK, my math is pretty good, actually, but I haven't done the homework. But this is my best guess as to what the report might mean. For steady state, the measure of the universe never changes. On the big bang theory, as we push the date back in time, the universe is smaller in such a way that, at about minus 15 billion, it is a point. With somewhat different math -- "quantum corrections" -- we could have a space that is smaller in measure at an earlier time, but never down to a single point, a singularity. Since the position of a particle is uncertain in quantum mechanics, that seems to imply that space could never be a single point. But, hey, I'm guessing.

From a theological viewpoint, though, this would be no problem for a Thomist theology that understands God as outside time and space and holds that God created both time and space.

[rug]

37. That's helpful. Once the math is removed I followed it.

I've been thinking about this article all day.

Ultimately the equation is describing a natural process, a bizarre, strange process, but still natural.

The question I'd like to see answered is how the "stuff" was there to go through these processes. It's still a door that opens to either infinite regression or infinite circles.

Positing a super-natural explanation to me is the only way out of this intellectual bind.

"It was always there" doesn't really answer the question.

[edhopper]

40. And yet

No physicist needs to invoke a supernatural explanation when theorizing and researching cosmology.

What do you know that they don't.

[rug]

41. And have yet to answer that question.

You don't need the supernatural to formulate advanced equations as to how things work.

[edhopper]

43. We don't yet have the answers

So God.

Never a good argument.

[rug]

44. "Yet" isn't much better.

[edhopper]

45. Than "God"?

It is a far better answer.

[rug]

46. No it isn't. Here's why.

1) You assume an inevitability of knowledge. There is no basis to do so, particularly when it comes to the universe.

2) Nature itself would have to be redefined to account for an existence that never began and never ends, only changes.

3) The reason a God is not simply another step in the infinite regression, i.e., where did God come from?

is that God is described as super-natural, having traits other than what nature possesses.

It may be right or wrong but it is a better answer than "yet" or "unanswerable".

[edhopper]

47. That is how you logically

Arrive at God? It really isn't a better answer at all. Just indefinable metaphysics.

I see that Universe as knowable. Which doesn't mean we will inevitably know it. Just the possibility.

[rug]

48. Name-calling isn't much of an argument either.

I take it you reject metaphysics, let alone "indefinable metaphysics", as having any value, Aristotle notwithstanding.

Speaking of logic, how do you know the universe is knowable?

[edhopper]

49. Why do you say

It isn't?

[rug]

50. Because physics, by its very nature, has limits.

But there are questions beyond those limits.

Which brings us full circle.

[edhopper]

51. Only if you believe

In something beyond the physical Universe.

But there is no evidence for that.

I'll have to leave it at that for now.

[rogerashton]

52. I would like to think that reason would settle this difference, but ...

different people find different things reasonable. And I find that very puzzling. (Because, of course, I have no doubt about what is reasonable!)

[AtheistCrusader]

58. What makes you assume there are questions beyond those limits?

Seems arbitrary, and fabricated/assumed on your part.

I don't see anything going on that leads me to suspect something beyond the natural universe. Where'd you get that idea from?

[Cartoonist]

9. Fun With Music

[cbayer]

13. That is great! Did you do that?

[edhopper]

11. Why post this Religion?

Shouldn't it be in Science?

[rug]

17. Agnosticsherbert got it. Yehi 'or.

Never forget your Hebrew.

[edhopper]

21. I don't take religious and folk origin stories

Last edited Tue Feb 10, 2015, 06:26 PM - Edit history (1)

seriously as having any veracity as far as science. As cultural artifacts and anthropologically, sure. But not as theories of actual events.

[cbayer]

24. Is the Big Bang not an origin story?

[edhopper]

25. I rewrote it

to be clearer.

[cbayer]

12. See, this could be completely fabricated and I would have absolutely no idea.

It is fascinating to me that the vast majority of people will come to believe something is true because someone with a mantle of authority will tell them it is so.

It's almost like religion.

[edhopper]

14. Not really

it can be explained and evidence presented to verify or counter it.
The scientific community, not "someone in authority", can weigh the merits.

It's nothing like religion.

[cbayer]

15. I was kind of making a joke.

But when there are only a handful of "peers" to review something, things get a little dicier.

What if this is true? All of the evidence about the big bang which was verified within the scientific community and accepted by the general public would be up for debate.

There are people with authority within the scientific community, particularly when it comes to these really high level discussions.

The bottom line, at least for me, is to remember that science does not produce "facts" but does present hypotheses that are backed by evidence. Even so, they remain open to question and can be overturned at any time.

[edhopper]

22. There are far more than a few physicists

working on this and understanding it. And it can be quite understandable to laymen.

The evidence of the cosmic background radiation and the expansion need to be addressed.

But it is always interesting.

[cbayer]

23. The degree to which a layperson can really understand this is questionable, imo.

I love if when Neil Degrasse Tyson leads me to believe that I actually understand some things, but I'm not fully convinced that I really do. I certainly don't understand it well enough to challenge it in any way.

We are dependent on our scientists and our doctors and so many others that have a level of expertise that we will never achieve. There is very often a leap of faith.

Yes, it is always interesting.

[edhopper]

26. I don't have a problem understanding it

it takes some work, but it is understandable.

We do leave it to those in the field to review and replicate results. But I trust the process and the integrity of those involved. (outlying failures notwithstanding)

The data can be shown and explained.

[cbayer]

27. The data can be shown and explained, but it can still be proven wrong

later.

I trust the scientific process but not always the integrity of those involved. Granted this particular paper is about medical research, but it happens everywhere and is particularly problematic as things become more esoteric:

Research misconduct often unreported in published studies
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/09/us-trial-violations-idUSKBN0LD25B20150209

A high degree of skepticism is a good thing to have, particularly when it comes to things that one might think they understand, but really don't.

Perhaps you have some education, training and experience in the field that would explain the apparent ease with which you grasp this. I have some education and consider myself scientifically grounded and it's way over my head.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. You are only dependent on scientists/experts because you choose to be.

The only analog between the discoverability of science, and religion, would be the ages when the bible was only available in languages the illiterate followers couldn't translate, and couldn't read, and relied upon the priests to interpret it and read it to them.

It has NO correlation to whether or not religion is real, and it is a FULLY surmountable problem if you apply yourself.

[rogerashton]

33. Distinguish evidence from models.

By a model I mean a mathematical representation of the way that the universe evolves -- or, in the case of Fred Hoyle's steady state model, doesn't evolve.

The evidence is pretty clear that the universe is not as the steady state model describes it. (I think I even understood that when I was younger!) The evidence is consistent with the big bang model, so far as we can tell. But there could be more than one model that could be equally consistent with the evidence, at least within the limits of our current ability to observe. That's important, because the big bang model is not consistent with quantum mechanics (assuming I am following the reports correctly.) It would be good to have a model consistent with both quantum mechanics and the evidence we can observe. That is what is being reported, if I understand correctly -- but the infinity of past time is a surprising feature of this new model.

[cbayer]

34. It is fascinating to me, but my point was that much of it has to be

taken on faith. While I do believe that people have tested hypotheses and that some do understand this, for most it is well beyond their ability to truly comprehend it.

You clearly have a better understanding than most and I do believe that I am capable of understanding this and could even challenge various aspects if I had an adequate amount of education, training and experience in the field.

As it stands, I do not and have to believe that the facts presented are being presented honestly. I assume that they are, but there is a fair degree of faith there.

[rogerashton]

35. My point was just

that changes in the model can be refinements rather than rejection of the basic ideas. The big bang model has been changed -- "inflation" is a relatively recent refinement -- while by contrast, the steady state model has just been rejected, there seeming to be no way that it could be tweaked to agree with the evidence we had by midcentury.

Then again -- Tycho Brahe managed to tweak the model with the earth at the center of the universe so that it fit the evidence he had better than Copernicus' sun-centered model. So we may see some reversals of our ideas as we learn more.

[cbayer]

36. I reread your post and missed the point about refining the model.

History is full of reversals of ideas that were once felt to be set in stone. Believing that one has the answer is perhaps even more dangerous when it comes to science than it is when it comes to religion.

[goldent]

39. People put way too much confidence in the peer review process

A lot of peer-reviewed research is not reproducible.

[cbayer]

59. I agree and too many people say "Peer reviewed!. Must be OK!"

I think the general public is getting better at critically assessing what they are looking at, but there is a long way to go.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Oh fucking please. Here we are with the false equivalency again.

The science behind the CMB, general relativity, inflation theory, and all that shit is FULLY ACCESSIBLE to you. You might not choose to put the effort into it, but you can, it's there, and you can VERIFY IT YOURSELF.

I can't verify that the pope got a celestial fax from some invisible security camera in the sky. Not a fucking thing I can learn, or test, or grow into, will allow me to view that sort of exchange/communication. (except perhaps strapping his happy ass to a lie detector or similar technology)

If the science behind the current view of the origins of the cosmos is wrong, it's accessible to any of us to discover it. It is not accessible to me to determine if 'god' is a thing, or not, or if it's one god or many, or one brand of god versus another, or prefers decaf or regular.

'Almost like' MY ASS.

[pokerfan]

38. well said

[goldent]

42. I think you can only verify the arguments are logically consistent

Last edited Wed Feb 11, 2015, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)

based on assumptions. Doesn't mean it is true, nor is there any guarantee we will ever get to the "truth." It is possible it is beyond our comprehension.

[LuvNewcastle]

53. I've long thought that the Cosmos didn't

begin and it won't end. When you get to that degree of magnitude, counting all the parallel universes, linear time and measurable space are meaningless. I can't really explain it because I can't comprehend anything beyond the dimensions I observe, but I think that we have a very crude understanding of the Cosmos. We don't really know how many dimensions there are, or even if there's a fixed number of dimensions. Even if the big picture was revealed to us, I don't think we could even come close to grasping it. We're only a small step up from chimpanzees, after all.

[rug]

57. That's why I think the inevitabilty of knowledge is dubious.

We don't really know how many dimensions there are, or even if there's a fixed number of dimensions. Even if the big picture was revealed to us, I don't think we could even come close to grasping it.

And if our descendants do, they will be a different species.

[TreasonousBastard]

60. That's the bottom line...

we are three-dimensional beings and have no idea what is out there beyond what we are able to see and comprehend.

Everyone from Aristotle to our present crop of near-genius cosmologists has been working with nothing but assumptions about observable space. A few of them have claimed to imagine at least as high as the fifth dimension, but there's no way to prove it. I saw better than that on an acid trip or two many years ago, but I'm not writing papers about them.

Talk about "science" is idiotic when talking about the origins of the universe, since very little is observable and nothing is experimental or repeatable. Anthropologists and historians have a much easier time dealing with fossils and shards while trying to figure out the past than cosmology has with equations and Hubble pictures of what things looked like 15 billion years ago. At least fossils and shards have some relevance to things we personally deal with on this planet.

"Infinity" is merely a term invented when someone was afraid to say "I have no fucking clue."

[edhopper]

61. How did you arrive at the 15 billion years

if everything is a mere assumption based on blinding limitations.

[Vincardog]

54. Seeing as how both Time and Space were a function of the BB, there was no "before" it

[hunter]

62. I'm always thinking about this stuff, my DU journal here is full of...

...it.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018341220#post26

Of course, since I can't put all the math together nobody has to pay attention to me

[cbayer]

63. Have you seen Interstellar?

Sounds like something you would like.

[hunter]

64. I did. But my paranoid pessemistic self saw some "Twighlight Zone" nightmares in it.

I can't convince myself that the "greater powers," whoever they were, didn't want to simply exterminate humans. But then maybe some twinge of conscience wouldn't let them exterminate us all.

How do we know these greater powers didn't make the plague that was killing our crops?

I can really be a downer that way.

Or maybe I should see the optimistic side: that they decided some random people among us were worth saving.

But probably not me. I might run away into the forest and unwittingly found a primitive tribe of cannibals who'd get along fine without high technology machines or agricultural crops.

"What's for dinner?"

"Oh just some stranger who believed the moon landings were a hoax and kept insisting his god would punish us."

It's clear my unusual Catholic/Jehovah's Witnesses/Quaker upbringing left me twisted in some ways.

Most of the time I don't believe humans are the first intelligent beings to have existed on this planet, nor will we be the last. For all we know the super-beings of Interstellar could be dinosaurs or dolphins. Heck, maybe the Neanderthals didn't go extinct after all, maybe they discovered how to travel through space and time and make long distance phone calls skipping past any reliance on mechanical devices.

[cbayer]

65. Ok, this is not an interpretation that occurred to me, but

I see where you are coming from.

I tend to think humans are the first beings to have evolved this far on this planet, but it seems highly improbable that beings haven't evolved beyond this point somewhere else.

If you like these kinds of stories, you might look at The Swarm. It is a great story and in line with your theories about this planet.