• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Has to be? :laughing:
Is there space between atoms?
Is there space within atoms?
Is there space between universes?
Is there space between multiverses?

There are many questions, but there are few rigid certainties, imo.
Well I don't know about you, but I would answer yes to all those questions...and so on to infinity.....there is only one space and it is infinite.... Asking questions about the space within circumscribed finite aspects of infinity doesn't change the fact of spacial infinity...
 

rrosskopf

LDS High Priest
Early Christians had no concept of a universe, and certainly did not believe that anything was "created" outside of the sphere of the earth. To them the outer shells of the earth contained pinholes that allowed the celestial light through. There is no support of a big bang in scripture. "Eternity", in the classical Hebrew, means "from time unknown", and cannot be relied upon to establish a permanent universe. Modern scriptures reveal much more. Joseph Smith taught that the earth was over 2,550,000,000 years old, and that other worlds had already died before the earth was created. He also taught that there were super massive stars at the center of our galaxy, and he taught this before Hubble postulated a universe of galaxes. He also taught that spiritual matter was still matter, but that it was too small to see. I suspect that science will eventually take this right turn, and corroborate all of the scientific teachings of the prophet
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Look at all my posts here?

Did anywhere have I even mention "dark matter" or "zero-point energy"?

I have not mention either, nor have I allude to them in any way? So when did I say they can't be tested? I certainly didn't.

You are attacking at strawman, ben. I didn't say what you think or believe I have said. :mad:

Either that, or you have mistaken me for someone else. If the former, then stop putting words in my mouth.
Das et al are using dark matter and its place in science in the paper you are dissing...that's what I'm referring to... Seems you have not even read it.....why am I not surprised...
 

Whiterain

Get me off of this planet
I believed the big bang was possible but I wasn't surprised with the new information.

Trying to explain the universe in scientific terms is somewhat unfathomable.

There are idea's of multiple dimensions, as if the universe isn't incomprehensibly big enough, there is more. Or perhaps these dimensions are actually part of this universe and there is no multi-verse?

I could try and whip up some cockamamie about my non-understanding of quantum physics, gravity, friction, thermodynamics, heating, cooling.

Water may have been the first substance, but how does water become rock?

Was there rock in the beginning?

With an even elementary understanding of quantum one could imagine gravity. But still, the thermodynamics can't make me connect material, unless thermodynamics created matter, matter cooled and created water.

After that, there's chemistry, I don't know dok about chemistry or how helium or nitrogen was created.

Bazinga, I'm completely illiterate in physics.
 
Last edited:

Whiterain

Get me off of this planet
Theoretically no....

I came to some zany idea all material objects were created by black holes or singularities - them being the first occurrences in the cosmos, but I couldn't begin to make it happen in formula, quantum physics is amazing but may be entirely irrelevant. Singularities or black holes creating matter through thermodynamics - matter forming, heating and cooling - creating water. But how friction and heat in thermodynamics could create matter means something, I can't give you a real theory on it, while it probably is floating around out there. But involving singularities and blackholes creating matter, while a blackhole is believed to be condensed matter and formerly a star. I couldn't explain how that created matter wasn't destroyed and shot across the cosmos at light speed and became something else either.

Just something that I articulated, just now, I'm pre-algebra. Sounded like a fascinating idea, but I couldn't explain how other gases were made.

Astrophysicists, what do we pay them for. Such a hack profession.

But Galaxies starting as singularities is pretty cool.

I'm just making stuff up, astrophysics ain't got nothin on me.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Are their atoms in a singularity? or black hole?
Different conversation.
I asked four questions and some of us reached agreement about space within, between and beyond atoms.
Now you ask about conditions where there are no atoms.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
This paper continues to get good coverage...
Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

by Tia Ghose, Staff Writer | February 26, 2015 08:41am ET

If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang."

In the new formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the universe may have no beginning at all.

"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

The new concept could also explain what dark matter — the mysterious, invisible substance that makes up most of the universe — is actually made of, Das added.

Big Bang under fire

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was born about 13.8 billion years ago. All the matter that exists today was once squished into an infinitely dense, infinitely tiny, ultra-hot point called a singularity. This tiny fireball then exploded and gave rise to the early universe.

The singularity comes out of the math of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which describes how mass warps space-time, and another equation (called Raychaudhuri's equation) that predicts whether the trajectory of something will converge or diverge over time. Going backward in time, according to these equations, all matter in the universe was once in a single point — the Big Bang singularity.

But that's not quite true. In Einstein's formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached. But scientists extrapolate backward as if the physics equations still hold, said Robert Brandenberger, a theoretical cosmologist at McGill University in Montreal, who was not involved in the study.

"So when we say that the universe begins with a big bang, we really have no right to say that," Brandenberger told Live Science.

There are other problems brewing in physics — namely, that the two most dominant theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, can't be reconciled.

Quantum mechanics says that the behavior of tiny subatomic particles is fundamentally uncertain. This is at odds with Einstein's general relativity, which is deterministic, meaning that once all the natural laws are known, the future is completely predetermined by the past, Das said.

And neither theory explains what dark matter, an invisible form of matter that exerts a gravitational pull on ordinary matter but cannot be detected by most telescopes, is made of.

Quantum correction

Das and his colleagues wanted a way to resolve at least some of these problems. To do so, they looked at an older way of visualizing quantum mechanics, called Bohmian mechanics. In it, a hidden variable governs the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles. Unlike other formulations of quantum mechanics, it provides a way to calculate the trajectory of a particle.

Using this old-fashioned form of quantum theory, the researchers calculated a small correction term that could be included in Einstein's theory of general relativity. Then, they figured out what would happen in deep time.

The upshot? In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old.

A way to test the theory

One way of interpreting the quantum correction term in their equation is that it is related to the density of dark matter, Das said.

If so, the universe could be filled with a superfluid made of hypothetical particles, such as the gravity-carrying particles known as gravitons, or ultra-cold, ghostlike particles known as axions, Das said.

One way to test the theory is to look at how dark matter is distributed in the universe and see if it matches the properties of the proposed superfluid, Das said.

"If our results match with those, even approximately, that's great," Das told Live Science.

However, the new equations are just one way to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. For instance, a part of string theory known as string gas cosmology predicts that the universe once had a long-lasting static phase, while other theories predict there was once a cosmic "bounce," where the universe first contracted until it reached a very small size, then began expanding, Brandenberg said.

Either way, the universe was once very, very small and hot.

"The fact that there's a hot fireball at very early times: that is confirmed," Brandenberg told Live Science. "When you try to go back all the way to the singularity, that's when the problems arise."

The new theory was explained in a paper published Feb. 4 in the journal Physical Letters B, and another paper that is currently under peer review, which was published in the preprint journal arXiv.**

*
Cosmology from quantum potential

**
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.0753.pdf
Far as I can tell the article says the singularity is confirmed. Speculation of what happens "before" doesn't make a bit of difference to the big bang theory. BB is observed. Where it came from is anybodys guess but as far as we can see big bang did happen. Yes the scientists won't be happy until the maths reconcile but I believe a reconciliation exists. It should be very difficult to calculate the universe, that's not surprising.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Are their atoms in a singularity? or black hole?
Yes, there are atoms in the black hole.

What we don't know is, what would happen AFTER to atoms of any matter that past the event horizon.

As to the singularity (before the Big Bang) is any one's guesses. No one really know.

Ben_q has already decided with Das' hypothesis is correct and should be blindly accepted without any evidence to support it, and already believe that Big Bang is finished.
 

mystic64

nolonger active
Guys what they are talking about is the "Law of the Conservation of Matter". Matter can not be created or destroyed, therefore "matter" has to have been around forever. And because our Universe is the only place that science can measure the presence of "matter", then the Universe has to have been around forever. The problem with that conclusion is the gift of Stephen Hawking's "Blackhole Math". Hawking's "blackhole math" proves that "matter" can and does leave our universe and is just gone. Stephen Hawking says that this matter that leaves our universe is not destroyed, it just goes somewhere else. It goes to somewhere that we can not measure what happened to it. Now, because matter can go somewhere, it can also come from somewhere. The stuff (protomatter) that makes up what we call matter has been around forever, but the form that it takes as our universe has only been around for some billions of years. The big bang is when it enters into our physical reality and we can see and measure it. Where it comes from and where it goes back to when a blackhole is formed is something that still has to be figured out. And something else that is fun :) the matter that makes up our universe is only here part of the time and part of the time it is gone. It blinks on and off. When it blinks on science can measure it and when it blinks off nobody knows where it went. But so far it always comes back :) .
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Guys what they are talking about is the "Law of the Conservation of Matter". Matter can not be created or destroyed, therefore "matter" has to have been around forever. And because our Universe is the only place that science can measure the presence of "matter", then the Universe has to have been around forever. The problem with that conclusion is the gift of Stephen Hawking's "Blackhole Math". Hawking's "blackhole math" proves that "matter" can and does leave our universe and is just gone. Stephen Hawking says that this matter that leaves our universe is not destroyed, it just goes somewhere else. It goes to somewhere that we can not measure what happened to it. Now, because matter can go somewhere, it can also come from somewhere. The stuff (protomatter) that makes up what we call matter has been around forever, but the form that it takes as our universe has only been around for some billions of years. The big bang is when it enters into our physical reality and we can see and measure it. Where it comes from and where it goes back to when a blackhole is formed is something that still has to be figured out. And something else that is fun :) the matter that makes up our universe is only here part of the time and part of the time it is gone. It blinks on and off. When it blinks on science can measure it and when it blinks off nobody knows where it went. But so far it always comes back :) .
Fascinating. Your source?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Ben_q has already decided with Das' hypothesis is correct and should be blindly accepted without any evidence to support it, and already believe that Big Bang is finished.

Understood, he wont let it go. This is his second attempt to prove a the unknown is known.

Yes, there are atoms in the black hole.

Not to sure about that. Atoms are hollow, material in a black hole is not. If you want to argue parts of atoms, I would investigate it. But not atoms as they exist now.
 
This is grasping at straws to try to save the idea of an infinite universe. It's worse than Hawkings pluggin in imaginary numbers.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Far as I can tell the article says the singularity is confirmed.
Hmmmm............did you read the article at all? Just to make sure, click on the link in your post provided and read again the opening statements....:rolleyes:

"If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang.

In the new formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the universe may have no beginning at all."
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
I love it when rank amateurs casually pontificate on what theoretical physicists obviously mean.
I note another fly by off topic snide comment from you .....please read the rules of the forum and abide by the spirit underlying them wrt this sort of .behaviour..
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Understood, he wont let it go. This is his second attempt to prove a the unknown is known.
Hmmmm....it is not right to accuse me of things in the third person, if you have a problem with anything I've said....address me directly and I will respond.

As it is, if you have followed this thread, gnostic has created this same strawman incessantly, only for me to keep refuting it. If you think otherwise, show me where I've stated or even implied that the Das paper has settled the matter and should be blindly accepted.

Ben_q has already decided with Das' hypothesis is correct and should be blindly accepted without any evidence to support it, and already believe that Big Bang is finished.
And the same goes for you gnostic.....how many times in this thread have you implied this....it's a strawman you keep creating to make out I'm not open minded, when the truth is I've never implied the Das paper is settled science or implied it should be blindly accepted.

So to put an end to it....please quote where I've said or implied this or don't ever raise it again.
 
Top