I wouldn't think so, but rather it's bound to lead to a new period of enlightentertainment. Now that the great minds of DS (you) have solved that timeless riddle in one short phrase - we can move on to the real puzzles of the universe and marvel as one at its hugeness.
I'd certainly hope so ... but I get the feeling that one or two "get-out clauses" may be forthcoming! ;-)
BIB - And I must correct you too, because I haven't said that.
We may have the law of gravity; but scientists do not know what gravity is, do they?
I've also read scientists saying that the more they study science the more complicated it becomes instead of becoming simpler.
you said the following:
While most people accept this model, scientists still can't explain what happened inside this tiny point - called a singularity – or what came before it.
Gravity is a force that acts between all physical bodies. How is that not knowing what gravity is ?
I said ideally you come up with the simplest theory as per Occam's razor , but that's not to say that the actual correct theory isn't going to be complicated. As Feynman says nature or physics is what it is. It may be like an onion with ever more complicated and intricate nuances or perhaps it may come down to some single relatively simple explanation for every thing.
Maybe I'm expecting too much but how come they're using a diagram of the Big Bang theory to illustrate a theory which contradicts it?
I actually read that article twice.
I read it the first time so see what it said and then I had to read it again because I noticed that it was full of "thoughts", "ideas" and "theories" and I wasn't sure if they actually mentioned any evidence.
It's also a little disingenuous of them to try and point out that "their" concept doesn't require a "big crunch", given that the Big Bang theory doesn't necessarily require this either.
Fundamentally, I find myself wondering how come an infinite and everlasting universe is also expanding.
Maybe I'm expecting too much but how come they're using a diagram of the Big Bang theory to illustrate a theory which contradicts it?
I actually read that article twice.
I read it the first time so see what it said and then I had to read it again because I noticed that it was full of "thoughts", "ideas" and "theories" and I wasn't sure if they actually mentioned any evidence.
It's also a little disingenuous of them to try and point out that "their" concept doesn't require a "big crunch", given that the Big Bang theory doesn't necessarily require this either.
Fundamentally, I find myself wondering how come an infinite and everlasting universe is also expanding.
I found myself wondering about this apparent paradox too. Maybe the universe is an optical illusion of some kind? Or maybe it's just "breathing" in and out regularly! Who knows.
Maybe I'm expecting too much but how come they're using a diagram of the Big Bang theory to illustrate a theory which contradicts it?
I actually read that article twice.
I read it the first time so see what it said and then I had to read it again because I noticed that it was full of "thoughts", "ideas" and "theories" and I wasn't sure if they actually mentioned any evidence.
It's also a little disingenuous of them to try and point out that "their" concept doesn't require a "big crunch", given that the Big Bang theory doesn't necessarily require this either.
Fundamentally, I find myself wondering how come an infinite and everlasting universe is also expanding.
They seem to be saying that it's not expanding ...
"In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age."
Meh, it's been obvious to me since my early teens that the Universe is infinitely old, will last for an infinite time in the future, is infinitely big and infinitely small (way beyond what quantum physics tells us). Our bit of it, what we can see or theorise about may be different, of course but what's beyond it? Plenty, I am sure!
I don't know why scientists even think they'll ever be able to *prove* any of it beyond our capacity to observe though, but it's just... umm... obvious!
They'll just keep on gradually seeing further and further back in time, further and further away and further and further down into the atom and whatever they are made of and so on. The future is a different kettle of fish though and I never did get my head around that but I guess we'll get there too... eventually or by skipping into untold numbers of currently unknown dimensions!
I read an interesting article about the expansion of the universe and where it will eventually lead which was quite a sobering experience. Effectively all the galaxies will eventually move away from each other until no other galaxy in the universe will ever be able to see any other, then all the individual stars will do likewise, until you get down to the individual atoms that will each and every one of them be so far away from each other as to never be able to interact or anything again. At this point in time the universe is utterly dead and gone. Presumably forever? The number of years until this point in time will occur was so mind blowingly astronomical that my brain ached badly. It was not in the billions, but trillions of years to the power of something like 1500. Effectively making the beginning of the universe seem like 5 minutes ago from where we are now.
If not fully understanding, I had always believed the BB theory up to a couple of years ago as the start, then after watching some programmes, changed position and concluded, the BB was an event not a beginning.
But my logic dictates to me everything still has to have a beginning,---doesn't it?
They seem to be saying that it's not expanding ...
"In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age."
And yet the stuff in it is moving, measurably, further and further apart?
I wonder if they've given any thought to what energy made that happen?
I mean, it's great that they've had an idea that gets rid of the whole "dark matter" thing, but it seems like there's a whole bunch of other stuff that they're ignoring.
But my logic dictates to me everything still has to have a beginning,---doesn't it?
You mean thinking that something may not have a beginning seems counter intuitive? I agree it does. It's a possibility that energy and matter always existed, maybe not always in this form though.
You mean thinking that something may not have a beginning seems counter intuitive? I agree it does. It's a possibility that energy and matter always existed, maybe not always in this form though.
I suppose it's counter intuitive because we think in terms of cause and effect, and we'd have to wrap our heads around infinity which our brains can't handle. Or to stop the pain, I'll settle for a breakdown in the laws as we know them, so you could have causeless effects.
Or even simpler... I don't know and physics hurts my brain.
Just when we were told that Science had all the answers.
Science doesn't have all the answers and is happy to admit to that, whilst still looking. Better to do that than substitute those gaps of knowledge and understanding with "magic did it"
Science doesn't have all the answers and is happy to admit to that, whilst still looking. Better to do that than substitute those gaps of knowledge and understanding with "magic did it"
I'm willing to say science may have all the answers, but scientists don't at this present time. ;-)
Science is a process. It's the best way and indeed the only way we will have to explain the universe. Inevitably the frontier of understanding is speculative. Tentative explanations are created, tested against reality, accepted or rejected ... that is how we make progress.
I think you might not have seen the many atheist/religion threads on here in which we have been told over and over again from some atheists that the Big Bang happened, and that science is true.
I've never believed those claims myself.
The wonderful thing about not having a 'faith' is that we are allowed to change our position when new evidence comes to light.
I think you might not have seen the many atheist/religion threads on here in which we have been told over and over again from some atheists that the Big Bang happened, and that science is true.
I've never believed those claims myself.
Famous atheists like John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
You don't believe 'science is true'? The irony of someone typing that on a computer... and publishing it on the internet...
Like string theory, this seems to be nothing more than a mathematical trick at the present time. It's an interesting hypothesis - and it'll remain just that until they can show it with some observable phenomena.
See this is the one thing that baffles me about the origins of the universe. You can't get something from nothing, something just can't exist and not have a beginning.
I'm not sure this is something we'll ever find the answer to.
The wonderful thing about not having a 'faith' is that we are allowed to change our position when new evidence comes to light.
You appear to be under the allusion that once we say "I believe in God" that that is that, so to speak. This couldn't be further from the truth; as it is the beginning of a journey that doesn't end.
See this is the one thing that baffles me about the origins of the universe. You can't get something from nothing, something just can't exist and not have a beginning.
I'm not sure this is something we'll ever find the answer to.
Well..it's really not "something from nothing". It's more that time and space as we know and experience it, did not exist before a set point in time. And trying to define what "came before" doesn't really fit with how we describe much of the phenomena such as gravity, in the universe around us.
I've yet to read the paper, but from the article., it's just expanding on the work that Einstein did later in his career when he added a cosmological constant to describe expansion. This is no different bar that it adds more parameters. It's interesting to see that they postulate that the "fabric" of the universe is described as some sort of quantum fluid - which revisits the older idea of there being some form of "ether" that allows radiation to behave as a wave.
It's odd...but my boss and I were discussing this recently and we came to a similar conclusion that perhaps the issue is how we describe gravity, and in essence how we define the "fabric" of the universe. We also considered the implications that anything that describes gravity, also has to deal with the scale of the structure that it's using - which is about absolute density of matter/gravity rather than some sort of sliding scale.
Well..it's really not "something from nothing". It's more that time and space as we know and experience it, did not exist before a set point in time. And trying to define what "came before" doesn't really fit with how we describe much of the phenomena such as gravity, in the universe around us.
I've yet to read the paper, but from the article., it's just expanding on the work that Einstein did later in his career when he added a cosmological constant to describe expansion. This is no different bar that it adds more parameters. It's interesting to see that they postulate that the "fabric" of the universe is described as some sort of quantum fluid - which revisits the older idea of there being some form of "ether" that allows radiation to behave as a wave.
It's odd...but my boss and I were discussing this recently and we came to a similar conclusion that perhaps the issue is how we describe gravity, and in essence how we define the "fabric" of the universe. We also considered the implications that anything that describes gravity, also has to deal with the scale of the structure that it's using - which is about absolute density of matter/gravity rather than some sort of sliding scale.
No, I get that entirely. My point is outside of time, surely something still cannot just suddenly appear, although 'suddenly appearing' would be time dependent, granted. But surely it is still not possible?
Comments
I'd certainly hope so ... but I get the feeling that one or two "get-out clauses" may be forthcoming! ;-)
Oops my mistake. I thought jonner was talking about in this thread.
I'm half asleep.
Nice try though.
you said the following:
Gravity is a force that acts between all physical bodies. How is that not knowing what gravity is ?
I said ideally you come up with the simplest theory as per Occam's razor , but that's not to say that the actual correct theory isn't going to be complicated. As Feynman says nature or physics is what it is. It may be like an onion with ever more complicated and intricate nuances or perhaps it may come down to some single relatively simple explanation for every thing.
I actually read that article twice.
I read it the first time so see what it said and then I had to read it again because I noticed that it was full of "thoughts", "ideas" and "theories" and I wasn't sure if they actually mentioned any evidence.
It's also a little disingenuous of them to try and point out that "their" concept doesn't require a "big crunch", given that the Big Bang theory doesn't necessarily require this either.
Fundamentally, I find myself wondering how come an infinite and everlasting universe is also expanding.
They seem to be saying that it's not expanding ...
"In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age."
I don't know why scientists even think they'll ever be able to *prove* any of it beyond our capacity to observe though, but it's just... umm... obvious!
They'll just keep on gradually seeing further and further back in time, further and further away and further and further down into the atom and whatever they are made of and so on. The future is a different kettle of fish though and I never did get my head around that but I guess we'll get there too... eventually or by skipping into untold numbers of currently unknown dimensions!
But my logic dictates to me everything still has to have a beginning,---doesn't it?
And yet the stuff in it is moving, measurably, further and further apart?
I wonder if they've given any thought to what energy made that happen?
I mean, it's great that they've had an idea that gets rid of the whole "dark matter" thing, but it seems like there's a whole bunch of other stuff that they're ignoring.
You mean thinking that something may not have a beginning seems counter intuitive? I agree it does. It's a possibility that energy and matter always existed, maybe not always in this form though.
I suppose it's counter intuitive because we think in terms of cause and effect, and we'd have to wrap our heads around infinity which our brains can't handle. Or to stop the pain, I'll settle for a breakdown in the laws as we know them, so you could have causeless effects.
Or even simpler... I don't know and physics hurts my brain.
Science doesn't have all the answers and is happy to admit to that, whilst still looking. Better to do that than substitute those gaps of knowledge and understanding with "magic did it"
I'm willing to say science may have all the answers, but scientists don't at this present time. ;-)
The wonderful thing about not having a 'faith' is that we are allowed to change our position when new evidence comes to light.
Famous atheists like John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
You don't believe 'science is true'? The irony of someone typing that on a computer... and publishing it on the internet...
I'm not sure this is something we'll ever find the answer to.
You appear to be under the allusion that once we say "I believe in God" that that is that, so to speak. This couldn't be further from the truth; as it is the beginning of a journey that doesn't end.
Well..it's really not "something from nothing". It's more that time and space as we know and experience it, did not exist before a set point in time. And trying to define what "came before" doesn't really fit with how we describe much of the phenomena such as gravity, in the universe around us.
I've yet to read the paper, but from the article., it's just expanding on the work that Einstein did later in his career when he added a cosmological constant to describe expansion. This is no different bar that it adds more parameters. It's interesting to see that they postulate that the "fabric" of the universe is described as some sort of quantum fluid - which revisits the older idea of there being some form of "ether" that allows radiation to behave as a wave.
It's odd...but my boss and I were discussing this recently and we came to a similar conclusion that perhaps the issue is how we describe gravity, and in essence how we define the "fabric" of the universe. We also considered the implications that anything that describes gravity, also has to deal with the scale of the structure that it's using - which is about absolute density of matter/gravity rather than some sort of sliding scale.
No, I get that entirely. My point is outside of time, surely something still cannot just suddenly appear, although 'suddenly appearing' would be time dependent, granted. But surely it is still not possible?
I don't think I'm explaining myself very well.