Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[Sees]

I could never imagine a beginning of the universe when it's defined as "any and everything existing"....ceaseless changes and reformations, yeah.

 

[Mycroft]

For me science and faith blend.

Science is not at odds with religion. It is not religions antithesis.

In fact, if god did exist, then the powers he used/uses to do his work must be underpinned by a scientific principle.

as for the OP: It's another great example of how science isn't afraid to revise its previous theories and throw out what doesn't work anymore!

 

[Nietzsche]

Yeah. I don't have an interest in trying to prove this one way or the other, but I don't think
is saying much. We just can't know if anything exists outside this universe or what it would be like. I have no reason to think any significant event took place in the apartment above me within the last 20 minutes, but that doesn't mean anything one way or the other. Know what I mean?

Let me expand a bit then.

"Time" as a concept is pretty poorly understood by most people. Time, honestly, is just entropy. By definition, you cannot have entropy without time. And for entropy you need things to experience it. See where I'm going with this?

 

[Jainarayan]

Of course, the key questions raised here are (for the Japanese) whether we can get a smaller, more powerful calculator out of these findings, and (for the Americans) whether we can get a bigger, better bomb from them.

Meh, I'd rather know how Gibbs got the boats he built out of his basement.

 

[Iti oj]

I'll watch for further developments. Feels right, but I accept and believe otherwise for the time being. Ill say more once I read the article.

 

[jeager106]

I think we might be kindred spirits, buddy. Not in the way of the Ancient Greeks, but I think we agree about quite a bit more than most.

I think you are spot on correct.
We likley are.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

I don't get it. All they did was substitute one singularity for another. Actually, they didn't even do that. Their new equation is an approximation of the new function they introduced "near the fixed point, the region which contributes the most to the integral, and obtain..." another singularity. They changed the lower limit of integration and the function integrated, but the result is still infinity (just like in the standard model). They've essentially decided that infinite density should be solved by integrating over a function of the Hubble parameter starting at H1 rather than H-nought and obtaining another singularity but one in which T no longer has any equation, or from

(standard model)
to

(their solution)

 

[outhouse]

I don't get it.

Agreed. I don't buy it, and I think they put their selves out on a limb here.


I still find comfort in dumbing it all down so I can understand it. A super massive black hole explodes and our universe is a product of that.

Until we can define a singularity in detail, understanding gravity in detail, and the Theory Of Everything, my guess is better then theirs as mine is possible if not plausible.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I still find comfort in dumbing it all down so I can understand it. A super massive black hole explodes and our universe is a product of that.

Hold it! .....where did the super massive black hole came from?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't get it.

Well that's ok......infinity is inapprehensible to most folk....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well that's ok......infinity is inapprehensible to most folk....

No, infinity I understand fine (I even have a thread on it: Infinities and the infinite). It's the logic of their paper and its reason I don't follow. I didn't bother reading your link other than to obtain the paper it is based upon (how do you think I got their equation?). Having applied their quantum correction to the first equation (or equation set) I have, they derive the second, and then claim "the second quantum correction in the Friedmann equation gets rid of the big-bang singularity." However, they've just introduced a singularity. And their claim at the start (the motivation for their paper) was "we show that one may be able to get a better understanding of some of the above problems [one of them being "the beginning of our universe, or the so-called big-bang"] by studying the quantum correction terms in the second order Friedmann equation, derived from the quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE),"

So, how have they shown that "studying" the quantum correction terms in this 2nd order differential equation enables us to better understand anything, when all it does is exchange one singularity for another, which is justified not on any theoretical or empirical basis but because it gets rid of the first singularity by introducing the second?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The nature of this question is inherently unanswerable because it relies on a condition, that condition being the existence of time. Without time first, you can't have a "before", "after" or "present". Time came into being when the universe did. Therefore, it has by definition always existed.

It's certainly true that we have no language or concept for "before" space-time came into existence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That's tough luck for "First Cause" argument.

The gaps for God continue to shrink! I suspect that the answers will eventually prove to be much stranger than Sunday-school ideas like "God did it", or limited human notions of a "supreme being".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, infinity I understand fine (I even have a thread on it: Infinities and the infinite).

Where did you get the quaint idea that infinity is a numbers game and is quantifiable?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's certainly true that we have no language or concept for "before" space-time came into existence.

What makes you think that space-time actually exists as a reality outside dualistic perception?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Where did you get the quaint idea that infinity is a numbers game and is quantifiable?

Funny coming from someone who just linked to an article about a paper where it is treated exactly as one. Whether or not it is a numbers game, a philosophical issue, a quantum state, the number of particles in string theory & its successors, and so on, is comes from context. Even in pure mathematics, there isn't just one infinity. In physics, there just one isn't either (and in both, some are larger than others).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What makes you think that space-time actually exists as a reality outside dualistic perception?

That's more of a philosophical question. All I can say is that if you drop a brick on your foot it will hurt.

 

[FearGod]

Of course, the key questions raised here are (for the Japanese) whether we can get a smaller, more powerful calculator out of these findings, and (for the Americans) whether we can get a bigger, better bomb from them.

Yes thats it, and how to use the powerful calculator and the bigger bomb on next life.

Not searching for our origin and what will be next isn't a wise thing to suggest.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

What makes you think that space-time actually exists as a reality outside dualistic perception?

The idea of infinite density/ zero volume or an untenable geometric concept called a 'singularity' is a college prank but apparently nobody sees the joke. Simply invert the terms and you get infinite volume /zero density which is more or less the same elaborate way to giving meaning to a description of 'nothing' as infinite density/zero volume.

The entire issue is really how modern day society fell victim to elaborate wordplays that serve no purpose other than academic funding and things like that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Simply invert the terms and you get infinite volume /zero density....

Isn't that more or less what the universe is heading towards?