Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[outhouse]

He has credibility and teaches.

You none.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I've spent years responding to such "articles" and how they misrepresent the papers they concern. The entirety of any possibly interesting aspect of the article you linked to has been around for decades. It's not news unless one manipulates both the study and what the implications of it are. The fact that it is peer-reviewed is completely irrelevant, as you don't even know why it was deemed worthy of publicationas you do not know and are not capable of evaluating the actual study's argument. Only your link to that little, sensationalist, inaccurate article.

Just no idea what it contained.

That's so rich LOM....do you really think I find your scientific understanding credible? Someone who posts a couple of copy and paste equations purporting to refute a peer reviewed paper before an audience of non-first class mathematically skilled anonymous posters, on an obscure religious forum on the internet .....a paper which has been peer reviewed by experts whose mathematical and science expertise in the field would be truly first class, and which paper got world media attention, and distribution..

So me ol friend LOM, I give you the opportunity to convince me you have some substance to you...outhouse claims there was material preexisting the BB, which he doesn't know how and where it came from...can you help him out?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Unsubstantiated snark and pile on.....now get back on topic...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So what?

All that means is, it is mow an official guess, nothing more.

So outhouse claims that a peer reviewed science paper which he doesn't have the mathematical skill to understand is nothing more than a guess.. No humility with the ol outhouse....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

He has credibility and teaches.

You none.

What...more pile on...please get back on topic.....

 

[outhouse]

Unsubstantiated snark and pile on.....now get back on topic...

No, my position is quite substantiated. Your claim was factually unsubstantiated.

Start providing credible sources for your claims, and you wont find yourself in trouble.

 

[outhouse]

So outhouse claims that a peer reviewed science paper which he doesn't have the mathematical skill to understand is nothing more than a guess.. No humility with the ol outhouse....

If it is beyond official guessing, then show me where this is an accepted scientific hypothesis.

Im not sure you even understand what peer reviewed means in this case.

 

[outhouse]

What...more pile on...please get back on topic.....

what credibility do you have on this topic, outside of biased opinion?

 

[outhouse]

Provide credible sources that show your new "model" is now accepted over the older model.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please stop the thread bombing with your egregious off topic ad homs and asinine comments outhouse.....and please note mods....do not fall for outhouse's attempt to get this thread closed. The OP article is based on a very important peer reviewed scientific paper that should be able to be discussed openly by members here without such disruption by those who disagree with its findings..

 

[outhouse]

. The OP article is based on a very important peer reviewed scientific paper that should be able to be discussed openly by members here without such disruption by those who disagree with its findings

You fail to understand. It does not take over the current supported position, does it??????????????

 

[outhouse]

then show me where this is an accepted scientific hypothesis

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You aren't even following....no one here said it was taking over anything, it is just a peer reviewed science paper......here is the link posted by LOM to the uploaded peer reviewed paper.....Cosmology from quantum potential, Ahmed Farag Alia,b, Saurya Das

Science does not work on the basis of anyone's appeal to authority, but on the scientific method....time will tell if the theoretical basis of this paper gets traction or not....

 

[MonkeyFire]

If we have always existed has this thread occurred before?

 

[outhouse]

....no one here said it was taking over anything

OK, so then it is a guess at his point in time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, so then it is a guess at his point in time.

Really outhouse...*** edited ***....you outhouse are too ignorant for words...you lack the merest prerequisite understanding of the working of science to have any meaningful exchange. To suggest that peer reviewed science papers are equal to guesses is a trolling statement that reveals, neither the slightest understanding of the scientific process, nor of the religious approach. Why are you even on this Science and Religion Forum?

 

[outhouse]

*** edited ***

Unsubstantiated

...you lack the merest prerequisite understanding of the working of science to have any meaningful exchange.

I understand quite well the "working of science"

To suggest that peer reviewed science papers are equal to guesses is a trolling statement that reveals, neither the slightest understanding of the scientific process, nor of the religious approach

Peer reviewed only mean that it is an educated credible guess. It has nothing to do with the credibility of the conclusion. This is possibly where your getting confused.

Peer review does not mean this is now a scientific hypothesis.


Observation
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experiment
Conclusion

And in the conclusion, one CAN reject the hypothesis, or one CAN NOT reject the hypothesis.


Peer review means it is scrutinized, it may not be not accepted or rejected at this point in time.

 

[outhouse]

Do you lack the understanding that at this stage of the game, a hypothesis is an educated guess??????

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Do you lack the understanding that at this stage of the game, a hypothesis is an educated guess??????

Until the mods can address your intolerable and apparent ceaseless harassment of the original poster, and the willful disturbance you are creating on my thread, even though I have asked you to refrain on a number of occasions....I have better things to do then put up with it any longer, so I ask one last time respectfully to just give my thread a miss until the situation can be resolved.....thank you...

 

[shawn001]

So this is how I've always understood it...hence my sig line. It has always baffled me how anyone could even imagine that you can get something from nothing.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
(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.

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.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

I haven't read this whole thread yet, but a couple things right off. Some from the way the media takes these kinds of articles.

But first, Ben, this "It has always baffled me how anyone could even imagine that you can get something from nothing."

Really they haven't. They have shown that there is no such thing as no-thing, but is a little more complicated then that really. But even in an empty vacuum we know there are virtual particles.

Then there is the issue of equal amounts positive energy and negative energy and when you do the math they cancel each other out so basically if that is right zero energy.

The

"No Big Bang?" is kind of media hype, as we have the light left over from the bang afterglow. However, this is kind of like the analogy of abiogenisis and evolution. We don't know about the abiogenisis, but we do know about evolution. In this case we do know about the bang, but not the singularity or how it started.

"The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years."

This is kind of off as well by the press writer I think. The age of the universe was determined by Wmap satellite at 13.7 billion years old with a margin of error of 1%.

The BB theory is just the universe was hot and dense in the beginning. Not the cause like the singularity, that is part of trying to explain it in the physics.

The old "big crunch" model they got rid of a while ago, but they maybe talking about something slightly different there.

Basically everyone is looking for "gravitons" and basically everyone is trying to tie in cosmology on the large scale to QM on the small scale, that is a huge goal right now and high priority.

Of course there are black hole singularities as well, just to point out.

I will look into this some more. It looks like interesting work and it of course needs to go through the entire process. Recently they thought they might have detected gravitational waves from the bang, but it didn't pan out yet.