• 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
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. http://www.livescience.com/41923-top-ten-origin-events.html

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. http://www.livescience.com/48922-theory-of-relativity-in-real-life.html

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
 

Zulk-Dharma

Member
At least this will make atheists understand how God is infinite and has no beginning, interesting study.

This is also a reminder of how science is ever-changing and what we may accept as absolute truth, later turns out to be false.
 
Last edited:

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
It's a beginning....but not all atheists believe in the BB, and many religious folk believe in it. It was a Vatican astronomer who first came up with the idea and the Roman church today believe it to be true....because they think it supports Genesis 1.3....Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light." = Big Bang...:D

Still most religions institutions today are apostate, so name your own poison...atheism or apostate religion? That's not to throw the baby out with the bath water, the true message is still there for those whose heart is true...
 

gnostic

The Lost One
This is also a reminder of how science is ever-changing and what we may accept as absolute truth, later turns out to be false.

What is false is that you think or believe that science deal with "absolute truth"...well, they don't!

Absolute truth is in the realm of either philosophy or religion.

The word "absolute" is not often used in the science circle, and they never used it to equate to any theory, let alone with the Big Bang cosmology.

Second, both you and ben_q are jumping gun, because this Das has not provided any evidence to support his case...just a boat load of speculations and what-ifs.

Lastly, the Big Bang model has only provide a theory of earliest possible "observable" universe, and that go as 13.7 billion years ago. It doesn't say what was before the initial expansion, and it doesn't say the universe didn't exist before the initial BB.

Das has made predictions, but he is long way from providing conclusive evidences for his claims.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
"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."

Which is nothing new.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Second, both you and ben_q are jumping gun, because this Das has not provided any evidence to support his case...just a boat load of speculations and what-ifs.

Lastly, the Big Bang model has only provide a theory of earliest possible "observable" universe, and that go as 13.7 billion years ago. It doesn't say what was before the initial expansion, and it doesn't say the universe didn't exist before the initial BB.

Das has made predictions, but he is long way from providing conclusive evidences for his claims.
As it stands, there is incongruency between QM and GR wrt the vacuum of space....GR says the vacuum of space is empty, QM says the vacuum contains infinite energy aka zpe. Until contemporary science can get a better understanding of dark matter and energy, zpe, and gravity....then the BB theory stands to be challenged by the multiverse models, and other infinity models.
 
Last edited:

Zulk-Dharma

Member
What is false is that you think or believe that science deal with "absolute truth"...well, they don't! Absolute truth is in the realm of either philosophy or religion. The word "absolute" is not often used in the science circle, and they never used it to equate to any theory, let alone with the Big Bang cosmology. Second, both you and ben_q are jumping gun, because this Das has not provided any evidence to support his case...just a boat load of speculations and what-ifs. Lastly, the Big Bang model has only provide a theory of earliest possible "observable" universe, and that go as 13.7 billion years ago. It doesn't say what was before the initial expansion, and it doesn't say the universe didn't exist before the initial BB. Das has made predictions, but he is long way from providing conclusive evidences for his claims.
All this came from a metaphysical reading of the two words "absolute" and "truth." Change "absolute" to "complete" and "truth" to "facts," and you will have a better understanding of what I wrote.

Also, nowhere did I accept the theory, I simply said it was interesting.

How? There is not a shred of evidence for any mythology in any aspect of the origins of our universe. Lots of imagination though.
*EDIT*
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So I can plausibly cling on to the belief that matter is primary and that effect must have cause?

At last! I don't have to feel dirty and awkward like a creationist anymore!

My dedication to blind ignorance and Materialist dogma has paid off!

Take that Science!:D

(sorry. I'm feeling validated. It's nice.)
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Again they need to find gravitons. This isn't really new at all they are working to fit cosmology and the big picture to QM. For that they need more QM information.

However, also once again we have the relic light left over from the big bang.

Please tell us what the BB theory really is and why the bang isn't going away. In fact the light from it helps support the add on of inflation period.

So what is this a picture of?

Planck_CMB.jpg



Planck reveals an almost perfect universe
The most detailed map ever created of the cosmic microwave background – the relic radiation from the Big Bang – was released today revealing the existence of features that challenge the foundations of our current understanding of the Universe.

This ‘cosmic microwave background’ – CMB – shows tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly different densities at very early times, representing the seeds of all future structure: the stars and galaxies of today.

Planck reveals an almost perfect universe | Science Wire | EarthSky
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
As it stands, there is incongruency between QM and GR wrt the vacuum of space....GR says the vacuum of space is empty, QM says the vacuum contains infinite energy aka zpe. Until contemporary science can get a better understanding of dark matter and energy, zpe, and gravity....then the BB theory stands to be challenged by the multiverse models, and other infinity models.


You can still account for BB theory and multiverse models, and other infinity models
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Big Bang Conditions Created in Lab

"

WASHINGTON – By smashing gold particles together at super-fast speeds, physicists have basically melted protons, creating a kind of "quark soup" of matter that is about 250,000 times hotter than the center of the sun and similar to conditions just after the birth of the universe.Scientists reported in 2005 that they suspected they had created this unique state of matter, but for the first time they have verified that the extreme temperatures necessary have been reached.

"This is the hottest matter ever created in the laboratory," Steven Vigdor, associate laboratory director for nuclear and particle physics at the U.S. Department of
Energy
(DOE)'s Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y., said Monday at a meeting of the American Physical Society in Washington, D.C. "The temperature is hot enough to melt protons and neutrons."

Traveling along this 2.4-mile-long (3.9 km) circle, the gold nuclei were accelerated to near the speed of light. When two of these particles smashed into each other, their collisions produced such huge amounts of energy that the matter was heated up to about 7 trillion degrees Fahrenheit (4 trillion degrees Celsius).

Big Bang Conditions Created in Lab


Which also has to do with superfluids and QM


Very Hot, Very Cold - Superfluids Demonstrate the Strangeness of Atoms

"Superfluids exhibit both quantum mechanical behaviours and classic mechanical behaviours at the same time. For example, superfluids can transmit ordinary sound (pressure) waves, a classical phenomenon. The reason for this duality is that superfluids contain of a small percentage of atoms in ordinary (random and variable) quantum states along with atoms that are all confined to one quantum state."

Scientific Explorer: Very Hot, Very Cold - Superfluids Demonstrate the Strangeness of Atoms
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
You can still account for BB theory and multiverse models, and other infinity models
Really? The multiverse infinity models hold the possibility of BBs being an effect of preexisting cause...the GR BB model posits no preexistence in play...time-space came into being after the BB (they say). Read what I said about the incongruency between GR and QM wrt to vacuum energy, gravity, etc..
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
As it stands, there is incongruency between QM and GR wrt the vacuum of space....GR says the vacuum of space is empty, QM says the vacuum contains infinite energy aka zpe. Until contemporary science can get a better understanding of dark matter and energy, zpe, and gravity....then the BB theory stands to be challenged by the multiverse models, and other infinity models.

Challenged, yes...but it has been challenged since the concept were 1st brought up (independently) by Alexander Friedmann (1922) and Georges Lemaître (1927) first brought the expanding universe in 1920s (and further developed by George Gamow in 1946).

Yes, I know that the Big Bang is not perfect, because there are still things we don't know. But so far, of all the cosmological models that we know of, the Big Bang cosmology is the only one that we have some evidences.

All the models you are referring to, the infinite universe model (like that from Saurya Das) or the multiverse models from various theoretical physcists, are just that, "theoretical" physics.

None of them have been testable so far.

And the article that you have linked us to, at the OP, the headline only say that -

...the universe may have no beginning -​

...and will stressed those words - "may have" - is really not definitive and certainly not at all conclusive, that because there are no evidences to support these models, just speculation and only have mathematical model (which is "mathematical proof"), but no evidences.

The words "may have" are only possibility that Das might be correct or he could be wrong.

You are treating the article, as if Das' model is conclusive or right, when it is really not, because of his lack evidences to support his hypothesis.Das' infinite universe is still a hypothesis, and nothing more than that. So unless he or some other scientists provide something that is testable, I don't think you can seriously pop the champagne bottle just now.

Yes, I already know about General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory don't go together hand-in-hand, and everybody else know this clash in the scientific community, including those who advocate in the GR and QFT camps.

As to the multiverse models.

There are many different multiverse hypotheses, including one by Stephen Hawking. All of them, while fascinating to read about, are just that, untestable hypotheses, including the one advocated by Hawking.

And as I have already pointed out to you before, the Big Bang is ONLY about the observable universe, so it doesn't really venture into what happen "before" the Big Bang, or the initial expansion.

Actually everything about the earliest universe, which is about the 1st 10 seconds after the Big Bang, from the Planck Epoch to the Baryogenesis, are still hypothetical. Scientists are only really understand what happened after 10 seconds after BB.

The theory is not about what happen before the Big Bang, or about the singularity. BB scientists have speculated what it is the singularity, but no one know with any degree of certainties. Everything about the singularity is actually outside of BB theory.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
All this came from a metaphysical reading of the two words "absolute" and "truth." Change "absolute" to "complete" and "truth" to "facts," and you will have a better understanding of what I wrote.

I am sure that you know that etaphysics fall into the realm of philosophy; metaphysics is certainly not a scientific methodology.

Truth is matter of perception, because truth is not always "objective".

Facts are only "truth" when they are "verifiable" through observation, hence it must succeed in rigorous and repeated TESTS, or EVIDENCES that support the hypothesis or theory. Otherwise, they are not facts.

Science on the other hand is more in the realm of combination of naturalism, epistemology, falsification and empiricism. And the objective way to validate or verify that any statement is through evidences or through tests.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Challenged, yes...but it has been challenged since the concept were 1st brought up (independently) by Alexander Friedmann (1922) and Georges Lemaître (1927) first brought the expanding universe in 1920s (and further developed by George Gamow in 1946).

Yes, I know that the Big Bang is not perfect, because there are still things we don't know. But so far, of all the cosmological models that we know of, the Big Bang cosmology is the only one that we have some evidences.

All the models you are referring to, the infinite universe model (like that from Saurya Das) or the multiverse models from various theoretical physcists, are just that, "theoretical" physics.

None of them have been testable so far.

And the article that you have linked us to, at the OP, the headline only say that -

...the universe may have no beginning -​

...and will stressed those words - "may have" - is really not definitive and certainly not at all conclusive, that because there are no evidences to support these models, just speculation and only have mathematical model (which is "mathematical proof"), but no evidences.

The words "may have" are only possibility that Das might be correct or he could be wrong.

You are treating the article, as if Das' model is conclusive or right, when it is really not, because of his lack evidences to support his hypothesis.Das' infinite universe is still a hypothesis, and nothing more than that. So unless he or some other scientists provide something that is testable, I don't think you can seriously pop the champagne bottle just now.

Yes, I already know about General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory don't go together hand-in-hand, and everybody else know this clash in the scientific community, including those who advocate in the GR and QFT camps.

As to the multiverse models.

There are many different multiverse hypotheses, including one by Stephen Hawking. All of them, while fascinating to read about, are just that, untestable hypotheses, including the one advocated by Hawking.

And as I have already pointed out to you before, the Big Bang is ONLY about the observable universe, so it doesn't really venture into what happen "before" the Big Bang, or the initial expansion.

Actually everything about the earliest universe, which is about the 1st 10 seconds after the Big Bang, from the Planck Epoch to the Baryogenesis, are still hypothetical. Scientists are only really understand what happened after 10 seconds after BB.

The theory is not about what happen before the Big Bang, or about the singularity. BB scientists have speculated what it is the singularity, but no one know with any degree of certainties. Everything about the singularity is actually outside of BB theory.
You make a lot of noise but it doesn't amount to much. Let me just comment on a bit..

Sure these new theories are just that, theoretical challenges to BB theory. BB theory is still only theory even though it may be treated like settled science to the true believers. But it ain't settled so long as GR has holes in it wrt QM science...

Of course these new multiverse theories are not yet testable,,,GR BB has been around for a long time and a lot of money has been spent on research...give the new theories a break and get back to me in a few decades to see how they are faring...

I know the BB theory is only about the observable universe, but so is QM, but at the micro level, and there is the rub....the question of what happened before the BB may be realized by these new theories..and what contemporary BB theorists think is unknowable may be unveiled...

But hey..regardless of these points, I agree with you that there is much more to it than Das et al are theorizing. I only post the paper for discussion. But the challenge to orthodox BB theory is now increasing and has to be addressed by those scientists who hold to GR no preexisting cause beliefs/Genesis 1:3.
 

Zulk-Dharma

Member
I am sure that you know that etaphysics fall into the realm of philosophy; metaphysics is certainly not a scientific methodology.

Truth is matter of perception, because truth is not always "objective".

Facts are only "truth" when they are "verifiable" through observation, hence it must succeed in rigorous and repeated TESTS, or EVIDENCES that support the hypothesis or theory. Otherwise, they are not facts.

Science on the other hand is more in the realm of combination of naturalism, epistemology, falsification and empiricism. And the objective way to validate or verify that any statement is through evidences or through tests.
I say this again, you misinterpreted the definitions of "absolute" and "truth" in my usage of the two terms. I didn't use them in a mystical form, I used them by their definitions.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Of course these new multiverse theories are not yet testable,,,GR BB has been around for a long time and a lot of money has been spent on research...
BB hasn't been around that long. It may seemed to it is long, but it is not really that long at all.

Friedmann (1922) and Lemaître (1927) both brought up the expanding model, separately, but BB didn't have any real evidences to support its theory, until 1964, with the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). CMBR was predicted in 1948, but the cosmic microwave wasn't discovered until 16 years later.

...give the new theories a break and get back to me in a few decades to see how they are faring...

I am being patient.

You are the one who readily believe whatever happen to be in vogue. You remind me of a person who chases one doomsdayer believing in his so-called prophecy of inevitable end-of-the-world apocalypse...and when that prediction fail miserably, you will chase another doomsdayer and believe in another prophecy, until the latest prediction fail too.

I am willing to wait as long it need be. Unlike you, I am willing to wait for any new discovery of evidences to support any new theoretical physics,

I am more of engineer than a scientist, so I rely on the more practical side of science, science that have real application in the fields that I work in. So evidences mean everything: it will either support a falsifiable statement or prediction, or it will refute it.

To me, theories of theoretical physics may be fascinating to read and learn, but as far as science go, they are still untestable hypotheses.

Sure these new theories are just that, theoretical challenges to BB theory. BB theory is still only theory even though it may be treated like settled science to the true believers. But it ain't settled so long as GR has holes in it wrt QM science...

I never said that BB was settled science. As far as BB go, there are evidences to support BB, NOW. So it is not just a "theory", it is a fact.

But I agreed that BB is far from complete, because as I mentioned in my reply to you, not everything is completely understood in the earliest stage of the Big Bang. I wrote that the first 10 seconds after the Big Bang, that they can only hypothetically predict what happened between the Planck Epoch and Baryogenesis. And they certainly don't know what happened before the Big Bang, hence the "singularity".

But what you failed to understand in my previous reply, that the Big Bang model never state what happened before the Big Bang. The singularity is just one of number of hypotheses, which is really not part of the Big Bang theory. The BB only covered what happened after the Big Bang.

So really, Das' hypothesis has't really refuted anything regarding to the BB. Das is just making a lot of tooting of his own horn, supposed refuting BB that BB doesn't even talk about.

I know the BB theory is only about the observable universe, but so is QM, but at the micro level, and there is the rub....the question of what happened before the BB may be realized by these new theories..and what contemporary BB theorists think is unknowable may be unveiled...

Well, I like I said before, I am willing to wait, but until that time of unveiling come, I will happily wiggle my thumbs, or get on with my life, because none of the cosmology, including BB, will change my life one or another. I am just not the sort of person who give my belief because some science article trying to make news with flashy but often hollow headlines.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I say this again, you misinterpreted the definitions of "absolute" and "truth" in my usage of the two terms. I didn't use them in a mystical form, I used them by their definitions.

And I am telling you that science don't deal with absolutes.

During my physics classes in high school and then later on in college, both textbooks and teachers/tutors have drilled into me, that when taking measurement of anything, always include margin of errors in my results (including the plus-and-minus to the units), because precisions are just as important as accuracy. The same go with my engineering course at uni.

And I view truth and fact, or with truth and evidence, to be not the same things. Facts deal with evidences, truth is perception-based (hence less objective).

And I didn't say mystic, I said metaphysics. Metaphysics use language like "ultimate" or "absolute" truth, science don't.

In science, all theories should be testable, challengable and most important of refutable, because nothing (like theory) is set in stone, even with established theories.

For instance, I accept theory of evolution to be a valid, not because Darwin say so, and not because it challenged the stance of theistic creationism, but because there mountain-load of evidences in nature to support the theory. And it is all these evidences that make evolution to be also a fact.

If you want to be objective, then look at the evidences. Does the evidences support the prediction made in the theory? Or does it fail and refute the theory.
 

Zulk-Dharma

Member
And I am telling you that science don't deal with absolutes.
Yes, it does. Just not with your metaphysical definition of "absolute."
And I didn't say mystic, I said metaphysics. Metaphysics use language like "ultimate" or "absolute" truth, science don't.
If it bothered you, I changed it to "complete."

And I don't claim that science always deal with absolutes, it does sometimes.
 
Top