Have to love science!!!!

[Apollo]

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 matter in the universe — is actually made of, Das added. [The Big Bang to Civilization: 10 Amazing Origin Events]

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. [8 Ways You Can See Einstein's Theory of Relativity in Real Life]

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.

[Snake-Pit]

I heard there is no centre of the universe it's so big, and therefore I am the centre of the universe (as is any observer).

[bacardimayne]

Unicorns don't exist, therefore I am a unicorn.

[Graeme]

Have to love science indeed, when new evidence emerges, existing theories and models are challenged and if conclusive proof emerges then a paradigm will become obsolete, regardless of how dominant it previously was or how many adherents it has. Frequently, scientists are forced to admit that something they have believed in is wrong, and they do so... Doesn't happen in many other spheres.

Guess we'll have to see how this new view holds up, sure a few years back someone claimed to have conclusively proven that black holes didn't exist, but their argument did not withstand scrutiny.

[SoulMonster]

Have to love science indeed, when new evidence emerges, existing theories and models are challenged and if conclusive proof emerges then a paradigm will become obsolete, regardless of how dominant it previously was or how many adherents it has. Frequently, scientists are forced to admit that something they have believed in is wrong, and they do so... Doesn't happen in many other spheres.

Guess we'll have to see how this new view holds up, sure a few years back someone claimed to have conclusively proven that black holes didn't exist, but their argument did not withstand scrutiny.

I remember this old professor at my former university who had worked on a theory all his professional life. Then a visiting scientist held a presentation that efficiently said that this theory was wrong. The old professor went up to the podium with tears in his eyes, shook the visiting scientist's hand and thanked him. It's about wanting to be correct, not right.

[Len Cnut]

Have to love science indeed, when new evidence emerges, existing theories and models are challenged and if conclusive proof emerges then a paradigm will become obsolete, regardless of how dominant it previously was or how many adherents it has. Frequently, scientists are forced to admit that something they have believed in is wrong, and they do so... Doesn't happen in many other spheres.

Guess we'll have to see how this new view holds up, sure a few years back someone claimed to have conclusively proven that black holes didn't exist, but their argument did not withstand scrutiny.

I remember this old professor at my former university who had worked on a theory all his professional life. Then a visiting scientist held a presentation that efficiently said that this theory was wrong. The old professor went up to the podium with tears in his eyes, shook the visiting scientist's hand and thanked him. It's about wanting to be correct, not right.

Ahaha, wankerrrrrrr

[netcat]

sure a few years back someone claimed to have conclusively proven that black holes didn't exist, but their argument did not withstand scrutiny.

it was Stephen Hawking! I saw it in "The Theory of Everything" just yesterday

[Dazey]

Have to love science indeed, when new evidence emerges, existing theories and models are challenged and if conclusive proof emerges then a paradigm will become obsolete, regardless of how dominant it previously was or how many adherents it has. Frequently, scientists are forced to admit that something they have believed in is wrong, and they do so... Doesn't happen in many other spheres.

Guess we'll have to see how this new view holds up, sure a few years back someone claimed to have conclusively proven that black holes didn't exist, but their argument did not withstand scrutiny.

I remember this old professor at my former university who had worked on a theory all his professional life. Then a visiting scientist held a presentation that efficiently said that this theory was wrong. The old professor went up to the podium with tears in his eyes, shook the visiting scientist's hand and thanked him. It's about wanting to be correct, not right.

You nicked that story from a film you fuckin' wrongun!!!!

Edit: Nope, I was wrong. It's from a Richard Dawkins interview.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Dazey

[DieselDaisy]

It is all bollocks. How am I expected to relate to quantum mechanics and big bang theories?

[Dazey]

[DieselDaisy]

I like science when the dinosaurs begin. But physics is bollocks. A bunch of old farts dreaming up concepts which can never possibly be proven: ''duh, what if anti-matter was created in a black hole vacuum and all the celestial objects came from it via a gravitational pull''. It is all bollocks. It does not affect me or how I live my life. It is just abstract theories.

[Dazey]

But all the celestial objects do originate from black holes or at least supernovas. Every element in the periodic table and every molecule in you, me and everybody else who has ever lived and who ever will live were at one time born in the centre of a dying star. Sounds crazy but its really incredibly simple.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Dazey

[GivenToFly]

I like science when the dinosaurs begin. But physics is bollocks. A bunch of old farts dreaming up concepts which can never possibly be proven: ''duh, what if anti-matter was created in a black hole vacuum and all the celestial objects came from it via a gravitational pull''. It is all bollocks. It does not affect me or how I live my life. It is just abstract theories.

You could say that about relativity but if we didn't know about it and didn't account for it our satellites wouldn't work.

People were probably saying stuff like this about quantum mechanics (probably still are) but you need to know about it and apply it for microprocessors to work.

Direct applications of arcane scientific concepts are all around you and are direct proof that those scientists know what they're talking about.

[Len Cnut]

Richard Dawkins looks a right pussy

[Dazey]

Here he is reading some of the letters he gets from Dies'.

[Len Cnut]

I never knew nothing about him aside from what yous lot talk about and i gave him a go the other day, i like him actually, talks a lot of sense. He was debating in front of this audience with this well dressed slightly fat looking muslim bloke, made a good account of himself. I especially like his manner, he's very gentle with it, isn't he? Not like Hitchens who, although he's probably often right, talks like a cunt and comes across like a cunt and a consequence of that is that it detracts from his overall message i find.

I've always thought that the day i hear the truth, the day i hear a man that makes sense of shit he ain't gonna be a zealot or be snippy or aggressive or coarse or smug but rather tempered with the serenity of enlightenment. Sounds an odd thing for a foul mouthed cunt like me to say but i really don't have no truck with like...coarse people. I mean me and you chatting like this is different but I mean like, if you occupy a platform of importance like in the field of politics or the sort of stuff Dawkins does, y'know, stuff thats supposed to be somewhat meaningful, it's important to go some lengths to ensure you don't talk like a fuckin' bellend.

If only because if your point needs aggression and like...a snotty manner to come across effectively then the concern is that perhaps it's not of substancial enough value in and of itself.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Len B'stard

[SoulMonster]

Have to love science indeed, when new evidence emerges, existing theories and models are challenged and if conclusive proof emerges then a paradigm will become obsolete, regardless of how dominant it previously was or how many adherents it has. Frequently, scientists are forced to admit that something they have believed in is wrong, and they do so... Doesn't happen in many other spheres.

Guess we'll have to see how this new view holds up, sure a few years back someone claimed to have conclusively proven that black holes didn't exist, but their argument did not withstand scrutiny.

I remember this old professor at my former university who had worked on a theory all his professional life. Then a visiting scientist held a presentation that efficiently said that this theory was wrong. The old professor went up to the podium with tears in his eyes, shook the visiting scientist's hand and thanked him. It's about wanting to be correct, not right.

You nicked that story from a film you fuckin' wrongun!!!!

Edit: Nope, I was wrong. It's from a Richard Dawkins interview.

It's a story you will find on every university

[Lithium]

I like science when the dinosaurs begin. But physics is bollocks. A bunch of old farts dreaming up concepts which can never possibly be proven: ''duh, what if anti-matter was created in a black hole vacuum and all the celestial objects came from it via a gravitational pull''. It is all bollocks. It does not affect me or how I live my life. It is just abstract theories.

[Len Cnut]

Have to love science indeed, when new evidence emerges, existing theories and models are challenged and if conclusive proof emerges then a paradigm will become obsolete, regardless of how dominant it previously was or how many adherents it has. Frequently, scientists are forced to admit that something they have believed in is wrong, and they do so... Doesn't happen in many other spheres.

Guess we'll have to see how this new view holds up, sure a few years back someone claimed to have conclusively proven that black holes didn't exist, but their argument did not withstand scrutiny.

I remember this old professor at my former university who had worked on a theory all his professional life. Then a visiting scientist held a presentation that efficiently said that this theory was wrong. The old professor went up to the podium with tears in his eyes, shook the visiting scientist's hand and thanked him. It's about wanting to be correct, not right.

You nicked that story from a film you fuckin' wrongun!!!!

Edit: Nope, I was wrong. It's from a Richard Dawkins interview.

It's a story you will find on every university

Suprised you didn't consider that Len was watching this time Edited March 2, 2015 by Len B'stard

[downzy]

Well, according to Interstellar, once we figure out how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics, we'll then have to deal with this guy peeping through your walls...

[DieselDaisy]

It is all gibberish though. How am I supposed to relate to science in the same way, a Shakespeare play stirs the soul? Humanities over science any day, for me.

Edited March 2, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[Lithium]

It is all gibberish though. How am I supposed to relate to science in the same way, a Shakespeare play stirs the soul? Humanities over science any day, for me.

Do you have a full-time job?

[DieselDaisy]

I work freelance. Why do you ask?

[Lithium]

I'm just wondering since it's difficult to get a job in humanities these days.

[DieselDaisy]

Do you think? clerical work, teaching. If you are interested in linguistics, teaching and translation. I tell you what a good language to learn is if you are going to be mercenary about it and seek business opportunities? Mandarin. The Chinese now are the only ones with money so all these big businesses need English-Mandarin speakers.

Many people who enter politics and civic service did humanities. Didn't that Salmon chap study medieval Scottish history?