Le Purple Chakra Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Hey there. Have you ever wondered whether the Big Bang Theory is correct? It's basically based off Einstein's general theory of relativity, but the theory is around 75 years old. As we all know, science has progressed one hell of a long way since then, but almost no-one has checked Einstein's theories (I stress theories) against what we know today about quantum physics and suchlike. Some researchers have found that, by applying [WARNING! Very sciency term incoming] quantumly physical fixes to the original theory, the universe has always existed, and always will, i.e. there is no singularity and the universe did not explode into existence one completely empty day around 13.8 billion years ago. It also happily explain such things as radiation stuff and dark matter. Source: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html What do you think? Is this theory more justified than the Big Bang? Have we been mislead by years of overwhelmingly smart equations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Cyan Stone in Mustard Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 In the end they're all theories. We can't truly know anything until we have the required evidence. They may very well be possible, but they may be proved wrong in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrafterofGenius Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Well if the universe ALWAYS existed(which can't be), when did it start existing and how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Purple Chakra Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 >always existed>when did it start You make me laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apo Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 You make me laugh. You took what he said completely out of context and attacked him for it. Attacking people in a place meant for logical debate doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look like an asshole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 You took what he said completely out of context and attacked him for it. Attacking people in a place meant for logical debate doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look like an asshole. Okay but, here's the full post: Well if the universe ALWAYS existed(which can't be), when did it start existing and how? ...so how exactly did it get taken out of context by Purple Chakra? Am I missing something? He's literally asking when and how it started if it always existed. No offense, but that does sound pants-on-head retarded to me. Now, maybe I am indeed missing something. So please, tell me what it is. Anyway.... Hey there. Hi! http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html What do you think? Is this theory more justified than the Big Bang? Have we been mislead by years of overwhelmingly smart equations? Well, I posted a thread about this back in the middle of February. Here it is: http://forums.backpack.tf/index.php?/topic/30124-big-bang-cosmology-may-be-under-threat/ Quite frankly, since then, I had forgotten all about it. Upon reading the article you provided, one of my first thoughts relates to this bit: "In addition to not predicting a Big Bang singularity, the new model does not predict a "big crunch" singularity, either. In general relativity, one possible fate of the universe is that it starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch and becomes an infinitely dense point once again." I just want to point out that while this was seen as a possibility at one point, we've already discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which of course is attributed to dark energy. This would mean that, unless something changes, we're no longer worried about a big crunch scenario, but a "big rip" or "heat death" scenario. That brings me to my next question, which is that if the universe has an infinite past, how is it still here? It should've flown apart a long time ago, right? Actually, it should have flown apart an infinite amount of time ago. So either the dark energy constant can change over time and even reverse itself (and I think there may even be some models that do have this behavior for dark energy), or we've had multiple big bang like scenarios such as was suggested by Roger Penrose's cyclic big bang model. It looks like the article may be addressing that here: "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. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe." I would be interested to know more about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Purple Chakra Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 You took what he said completely out of context and attacked him for it. Attacking people in a place meant for logical debate doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look like an asshole. I was not trying to attack him. I was simply saying that I thought that his post didn't make sense. It's like trying to comprehend 4 dimensions. We cant; we can only represent it in terms that we understand, and this minimalises the meaning. We try to comprehend infinity, and we can't. We have a extremely short lifespan, especially when compared to the Universe. Therefore, we need things to have a start, otherwise we are unlikely to grasp the concept. Actually, the universe can already be thought to be infinite, as you have successive Big Crunches which create singularities, then Big Bangs, which explode in everything. ...which of course is attributed to dark energy. "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)" Dark energy is the explanation for the expansion of the universe as predicted by general relativity, but as this is a different theory, dark energy is not needed. Neat, isn't it. EDIT: Just saw that you put that in your post. That brings me to my next question, which is that if the universe has an infinite past, how is it still here? It should've flown apart a long time ago, right? Actually, it should have flown apart an infinite amount of time ago. "Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations." It seems to be implied that these 'geodesics' are like two lines, infinite in their X axis but constantly changing in the Y. Whenever these two lies converge, Big Collapse, Big Bang. But, in this theory, there are no convergences. The universe is infinite, unchanging in all but the Y axis. This could perhaps be the reason of the universe expanding. It may just be part of the fluctuations of these two lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curly Brace Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 In the end they're all theories. We can't truly know anything until we have the required evidence. They may very well be possible, but they may be proved wrong in the future. Do you not know what the word theory means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrafterofGenius Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Am I missing something? He's literally asking when and how it started if it always existed. No offense, but that does sound pants-on-head retarded to me. You make me laugh. When I wrote that I was extremely tired, but you still can read and understand that I'm saying the universe cannot have always "just been there" and I'd like to know what started the galaxies formations and presented all this matter into space. Also, bread, you really need to stop being so passive agressive. There's so many words you can use to represent confusion over my words rather than indirectly calling me retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apo Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Okay but, here's the full post: ...so how exactly did it get taken out of context by Purple Chakra? Am I missing something? He's literally asking when and how it started if it always existed. No offense, but that does sound pants-on-head retarded to me. Now, maybe I am indeed missing something. So please, tell me what it is. There's no 1 way for his question to be explained (unless he were to give that explanation). Putting it into your own context without asking for any sort of explanation is taking it out of context. We have to ask ourselves, is the existence of this universe correlated to the existence of time? Could have an alternate universe spawned ours? In this scenario, Time would have existed before our universe was in place. If so, our universe could have always existed, AND had a beginning. This is possible because a "universe" is defined as matter and space. Our universe would have existed before (matter, space), but then it would have been created when it was turned into OUR universe. Another explanation that doesn't involve an "unprovable scenario" could be: "If our universe has always existed, When did it take its current form? (Planets, Solar Systems, Galaxies, etc.)" edit: ninja'd by crafter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuuko-San Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 best tv show ever11!1 I'm not sure whether it's within our grasp right now to prove these theories or not. But I find them interesting. I just think that, in time, we'll learn more and more about our universe to the point where we CAN answer these questions, and prove these theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 You can't really talk about the Big Bang theory without religion, because it is mostly a religious idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSkelly Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 *wades through piles of shit* sup guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 *wades through piles of shit* sup guys. The forums can't handle concepts like this because they're way too childish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Map Painter Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 You can't really talk about the Big Bang theory without religion, because it is mostly a religious idea. I don't recall Hubble's constant or cosmic background radiation being devised by theologians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senpai Absol~ Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 The forums can't handle concepts like this because they're way too childish. My Sig agrees with this comment :^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tea Overlord Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 TL;DR big bang is an inproven theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanner the Original Scout™ Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 TL;DR big bang is an inproven theory Could you not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Map Painter Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 TL;DR big bang is an inproven theory Whilst there are holes in the argument, and quantum mechanics may go on to disprove the theory, there is also some evidence to support the Big Bang - otherwise many wouldn't believe in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tea Overlord Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Whilst there are holes in the argument, and quantum mechanics may go on to disprove the theory, there is also some evidence to support the Big Bang - otherwise many wouldn't believe in it. that's why i said that it isn't proven yet. it will take a long time to prove or disprove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CUD Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 In the end they're all theories. We can't truly know anything until we have the required evidence. They may very well be possible, but they may be proved wrong in the future. Even what we consider to be facts can be proven wrong in the future. We adjust our understanding of the universe when we acquire new evidence. Theories shouldn't be dismissed so easily, especially if they have some basis to them. They may be lacking all the evidence they need to be proven 100% but they definitely should not be dismissed as being 'just a theory'. Obviously you're not wrong in saying it's a theory but 'just a theory' seems so dismissive so it annoys me when people do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ǍгᴋᴀɴД ₭ɪлʛ Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 The universe always existing doesn't sound as far-fetched as I thought it would be? Humans to an extend cannot grasp the concept of infinite & this theory would go on par with the theory that the universe is expanding or "infinite" if you will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 The universe always existing doesn't sound as far-fetched as I thought it would be? Humans to an extend cannot grasp the concept of infinite & this theory would go on par with the theory that the universe is expanding or "infinite" if you will? It's a human concept, isn't it? Do we actually observe infinity anywhere in nature, or is it just on paper and in our minds that we encounter it? That's a serious question. While infinity can be worked with and encountered in an abstract logical system like mathematics, does really exist anywhere? Even if the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, how do we sufficiently demonstrate this, and would it be reasonable to then say that infinity itself is a thing that exists, any more than any random number actually exists beyond the abstract? Sorry, it's a bit off topic, but I couldn't resist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Cyan Stone in Mustard Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Even what we consider to be facts can be proven wrong in the future. We adjust our understanding of the universe when we acquire new evidence. Theories shouldn't be dismissed so easily, especially if they have some basis to them. They may be lacking all the evidence they need to be proven 100% but they definitely should not be dismissed as being 'just a theory'. Obviously you're not wrong in saying it's a theory but 'just a theory' seems so dismissive so it annoys me when people do that. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the theories can fully well be possible, I'm not denying that the theories are true, but I'm also not saying they are false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the theories can fully well be possible, I'm not denying that the theories are true, but I'm also not saying they are false. Some may disagree with me here, and perhaps rightfully so, but I think it's wrong to look a science as a search for some ultimate absolute truth, or to judge theories on that basis. Don't get me wrong. Theories are accepted because they are evidently true (or appear to accurately reflect reality to the best of our ability to judge, if you prefer). I think a more appropriate way of looking at a scientific theory is whether or not it works, at least when it comes to theories that are pure physics. Does it consistently make accurate predictions which can be relied upon? This may be the best we can do. Our theories may get better and explain more over time, but we will probably never gain absolute certainty about anything (and I'm not absolutely certain about that, lol). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.