7 ms·

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

39 points by bootload 12y ago

joshmn 12y ago
I'm assuming my brain is not the only brain that is uncomfortable trying to understand this...
- dozzie 12y ago
  Given that the most of the article is just throwing jargon at random instead of explaining anything, it's no wonder you had hard time reading it.
- M2Ys4U 12y ago
  Unless you're a fan of solipsism, of course.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- bonobo3000 12y ago
  I know very little about physics, but it doesn't seem all that weird given that the universe having "a beginning" depends on some notion of time, but time is a construct that exists only within the universe.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ExpiredLink 12y ago
  You should discuss this with your brain.
stagas 12y ago
A finite size universe that this describes also increases the odds of it being a simulation. Because then it should be possible to program a complete universe, at a smaller scale of course. Also I could be very wrong because I hardly understand this.
- empressplay 12y ago
  It could be a simulation or merely a self-contained "universe" inside a larger universe (that may have different rules.) Or, it could simply "exist without cause", which I'm not that convinced by, since if that were the case, we should see evidence of entities within the universe that also "exist without cause", and we don't.
  - mortehu 12y ago
    > if that were the case, we should see evidence of entities within the universe that also "exist without cause", and we don't. Why don't quantum fluctuations count?
adventured 12y ago
I've been arguing with people for about 15 years that there is no end or beginning to the universe, and inherently can't be. I never cease to be amazed at the anger, and or general instant disregard it generates from big bang devotees. I've found the big bang crowd to be almost like a religion. How typically atheistic, scientific minds could think there is a beginning to the universe baffles me.
- bottled_poe 12y ago
  And what is your explanation then? Please explain how existing data (eg. CMB) supports your theory.
  - adventured 12y ago
    The CMB argument around the big bang is misunderstanding what is being witnessed. It's not the start of the universe that it's revealing information about, but rather a perpetual cycle. The universe regurgitates, it does not begin or end. Compression, release, distribution, re-compression. An actual true beginning requires an ultimate creator, an entity that can exist outside of all that exists. I disagree with that premise for many reasons. Much like science missed wildly in estimating just how small the micro world is, it has missed wildly on the macro scale. What is thought of as the universe (the total assumed sum + ~13.8 billion years), is just another very large collection. It goes through a constant cycle, the actual universe does not. I think that within perhaps 20 or 30 years we'll be able to prove that what we think of as all there is - the "universe" - is just one in another very large collection. The big bang theory is going to fall apart in the next decade. That process is going to upset a lot of people that have bet their entire professional lives on it. One thing I've always come to expect when discussing the big bang theory as being potentially false, is that I will be drenched in every possible argument (rational, emotional, ad hominem, etc) by its devotees. There is an incredibly intense emotional attachment to that theory.
    - saboot 12y ago
      > The CMB argument around the big bang is misunderstanding what is being witnessed. It's not the start of the universe that it's revealing information about, but rather a perpetual cycle. The universe regurgitates, it does not begin or end. The idea of a cyclical universe has been around for decades (I recall seeing a diagram about it as a child 20 years ago), there isn't a mis-understanding of what the CMB reveals. It gives evidence about the creation of our _own_ observable universe, and the state of matter moments after the creation event of _our_ universe referred to as the big bang. Ideas regarding our observable universe residing in higher dimensional spaces have been around for several decades under the name Brane Cosmology. In fact this interpretation of the CMB has been studied for evidence of a "mother" or pre-universe state [0]. After an initial round of statistically modelling and excitement, it was found with the current abilities of the WMAP satelitte that no evidence of a such a pre-universe was detectable [1] My confusion in your position is that these models are absolutely not in contradiction of the big bang model, which explains _our_ universe (saying nothing of multiverses). There can be a lot of misunderstanding in the general public regarding science and pop science and words that have specific meaning (universe, multiverse) can be used incorrectly. It's not fair to direct mis-appropriating terms against the scientific theories themselves. > Compression, release, distribution, re-compression. This isn't true for our current universe at least, we are in a run away state of expansion, there will be no re-compression. > That process is going to upset a lot of people that have bet their entire professional lives on it. This is a gross exaggeration. Every cosmologist I've known is desperately searching for something different, unintuitive, completely unexpected and exciting. It's fun! [0] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1656 http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1656
xtacy 12y ago
Discussion on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2vb2fa/no_big_bang_quantum_equation_predicts_universe/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2vb2fa/no_big_bang...
- dnix 12y ago
  I quite like the top comment. Perhaps we've too narrowly defined our concept of beginning and end?
danieltillett 12y ago
You don't even need a new theory to predict the universe has no beginning. Since in general relativity time slows down (from our reference frame) as the universe become denser and hotter, if the universe starts as a singularity then an infinite amount of time must have elapsed between the initial singularity and now. This is just another way of saying that the universe has always existed.
- oelequud 12y ago
  No. Try solving the Friedmann equations for a simple case (e.g. spatially flat universe, no cosmological constant, dominated by non-relativistic matter) to see that that's not true.
  - danieltillett 12y ago
    How do you solve the Friedmann equations starting from a singularity?
    - oelequud 12y ago
      You don't. You solve them starting from now and then trace the solution back in time to find a singularity.
      - danieltillett 12y ago
        Don't all the assumptions breakdown at a singularity?
        oelequud 12y ago
        I don't understand what you mean by that. In your first comment, you said that general relativity predicted that an infinite amount of time would have passed since the initial singularity. But that is not true: If you apply general relativity to a (very simple) model of the universe, you get the Friedmann equations. You can then solve these equations and get a solution that depends on the parameters of your model (spatial curvature, cosmological constant, equation of state of the matter/energy content). You can then see that all such solutions which fit our observations of the universe (the universe is currently expanding and not all energy in the universe behaves like dark energy) have the property that there was a singularity a finite amount of t ago. As always in general relativity, one has to determine what exactly "t" means. But luckily, for the Robertson-Walker metric, the answer to that is relatively simple: t is the proper time of particles that are at rest relative to the average matter content of the universe (of course up to arbitrary translations). So the result is: General relativity predicts for a universe like ours, that for matter that was at rest relative to the rest of the matter in the universe, only a finite amount of time has passed since a singularity. Time does not slow down near the big bang. Of course that doesn't mean that this is the whole and perfect truth. The very fact that GR predicts a singularity means that GR is incomplete; a singularity is simply not a valid prediction. A theory of quantum gravity is probably necessary to fix that. But I just wanted to correct the error in your first post.
facepalm 12y ago
"New gravity particle" - I wonder what is the point of inventing such things? Does it have any meaning at all? I suspect it is us clinging to our bias of human perception. The only reason it could be useful is maybe if "particle" implies a certain set of behaviors all particles have in common? To make it clearer: what I mean is that the notion of a "gravity particle" only gives us the illusion of something we can grasp, whereas presumably there is no such thing in reality. Edit: downvote, why? It's a serious question.
acd 12y ago
We are here to experiance different things and the purpose of life is to be happy! Maybe the higher dimensions in a quantum world gives us experienced to teach us things that takes many life times to learn. For example humans have not yet learnt that living in peace is better than war. It's basically where science meets eastern Buddhism values. Maybe the universe reborns in cycles expanding and collapsing in forever ending loops and there are parallel universes that exist to this one in higher dimensions.
jrapdx3 12y ago
There was a reference to this article about 2 months ago. I read though the original paper quickly at the time, intending to go back and try to understand it more thoroughly. Toward the end of the paper, I was startled to see the conclusion about the universe having no beginning or end. Struck me as remarkable coming from physicists, then again, they were using "Bohmian trajectories", and Bohm was in his own way an unconventional thinker. In my imagination, Bohm would not have been surprised by an "endless" universe. Fascinating. How strange it will be if "science" winds up "proving" an age-old "spiritual" idea.
- sudoinstallwin 12y ago
  This post is a good example of verbose that doesn't really say anything. ^
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
Ujio 12y ago
No "beginning" does not mean no "big bang", and "big bang" is a completely shite term to begin with. "God Particle", "Y-Chromosomal Adam", "Mitochondrial Eve" ... the boffins who think this shit up should be (metaphorically) shot.
- oelequud 12y ago
  Well, the term "big bang" was originally coined by Fred Hoyle, who was a proponent of the alternative steady state model of cosmology. Many belive that it was meant to be pejorative and to ridicule the idea of a "beginning" of the universe. Similarly, "God Particle" isn't a term that was ever used in physics. If I recall correctly, it comes from the title of a popular science book, which the author originally wanted to call "The Goddamn Particle" (because the Higgs was so hard to find experimentally), but the publisher didn't like that. Unfortunately "God Particle" stuck in popular science and the media.
foolmath 12y ago
niubi

39 points by bootload 12y ago

joshmn 12y ago

I'm assuming my brain is not the only brain that is uncomfortable trying to understand this...

dozzie 12y ago
Given that the most of the article is just throwing jargon at random instead of explaining anything, it's no wonder you had hard time reading it.
M2Ys4U 12y ago
Unless you're a fan of solipsism, of course.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
bonobo3000 12y ago
I know very little about physics, but it doesn't seem all that weird given that the universe having "a beginning" depends on some notion of time, but time is a construct that exists only within the universe.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ExpiredLink 12y ago
You should discuss this with your brain.

stagas 12y ago

A finite size universe that this describes also increases the odds of it being a simulation. Because then it should be possible to program a complete universe, at a smaller scale of course. Also I could be very wrong because I hardly understand this.

empressplay 12y ago
It could be a simulation or merely a self-contained "universe" inside a larger universe (that may have different rules.) Or, it could simply "exist without cause", which I'm not that convinced by, since if that were the case, we should see evidence of entities within the universe that also "exist without cause", and we don't.
- mortehu 12y ago
  > if that were the case, we should see evidence of entities within the universe that also "exist without cause", and we don't. Why don't quantum fluctuations count?

adventured 12y ago

I've been arguing with people for about 15 years that there is no end or beginning to the universe, and inherently can't be. I never cease to be amazed at the anger, and or general instant disregard it generates from big bang devotees. I've found the big bang crowd to be almost like a religion. How typically atheistic, scientific minds could think there is a beginning to the universe baffles me.

bottled_poe 12y ago
And what is your explanation then? Please explain how existing data (eg. CMB) supports your theory.
- adventured 12y ago
  The CMB argument around the big bang is misunderstanding what is being witnessed. It's not the start of the universe that it's revealing information about, but rather a perpetual cycle. The universe regurgitates, it does not begin or end. Compression, release, distribution, re-compression. An actual true beginning requires an ultimate creator, an entity that can exist outside of all that exists. I disagree with that premise for many reasons. Much like science missed wildly in estimating just how small the micro world is, it has missed wildly on the macro scale. What is thought of as the universe (the total assumed sum + ~13.8 billion years), is just another very large collection. It goes through a constant cycle, the actual universe does not. I think that within perhaps 20 or 30 years we'll be able to prove that what we think of as all there is - the "universe" - is just one in another very large collection. The big bang theory is going to fall apart in the next decade. That process is going to upset a lot of people that have bet their entire professional lives on it. One thing I've always come to expect when discussing the big bang theory as being potentially false, is that I will be drenched in every possible argument (rational, emotional, ad hominem, etc) by its devotees. There is an incredibly intense emotional attachment to that theory.
  - saboot 12y ago
    > The CMB argument around the big bang is misunderstanding what is being witnessed. It's not the start of the universe that it's revealing information about, but rather a perpetual cycle. The universe regurgitates, it does not begin or end. The idea of a cyclical universe has been around for decades (I recall seeing a diagram about it as a child 20 years ago), there isn't a mis-understanding of what the CMB reveals. It gives evidence about the creation of our _own_ observable universe, and the state of matter moments after the creation event of _our_ universe referred to as the big bang. Ideas regarding our observable universe residing in higher dimensional spaces have been around for several decades under the name Brane Cosmology. In fact this interpretation of the CMB has been studied for evidence of a "mother" or pre-universe state [0]. After an initial round of statistically modelling and excitement, it was found with the current abilities of the WMAP satelitte that no evidence of a such a pre-universe was detectable [1] My confusion in your position is that these models are absolutely not in contradiction of the big bang model, which explains _our_ universe (saying nothing of multiverses). There can be a lot of misunderstanding in the general public regarding science and pop science and words that have specific meaning (universe, multiverse) can be used incorrectly. It's not fair to direct mis-appropriating terms against the scientific theories themselves. > Compression, release, distribution, re-compression. This isn't true for our current universe at least, we are in a run away state of expansion, there will be no re-compression. > That process is going to upset a lot of people that have bet their entire professional lives on it. This is a gross exaggeration. Every cosmologist I've known is desperately searching for something different, unintuitive, completely unexpected and exciting. It's fun! [0] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1656 http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1656

xtacy 12y ago

Discussion on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2vb2fa/no_big_bang_quantum_equation_predicts_universe/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2vb2fa/no_big_bang...

dnix 12y ago
I quite like the top comment. Perhaps we've too narrowly defined our concept of beginning and end?

danieltillett 12y ago

You don't even need a new theory to predict the universe has no beginning. Since in general relativity time slows down (from our reference frame) as the universe become denser and hotter, if the universe starts as a singularity then an infinite amount of time must have elapsed between the initial singularity and now. This is just another way of saying that the universe has always existed.

oelequud 12y ago
No. Try solving the Friedmann equations for a simple case (e.g. spatially flat universe, no cosmological constant, dominated by non-relativistic matter) to see that that's not true.
- danieltillett 12y ago
  How do you solve the Friedmann equations starting from a singularity?
  - oelequud 12y ago
    You don't. You solve them starting from now and then trace the solution back in time to find a singularity.
    - danieltillett 12y ago
      Don't all the assumptions breakdown at a singularity?
      - oelequud 12y ago
        I don't understand what you mean by that. In your first comment, you said that general relativity predicted that an infinite amount of time would have passed since the initial singularity. But that is not true: If you apply general relativity to a (very simple) model of the universe, you get the Friedmann equations. You can then solve these equations and get a solution that depends on the parameters of your model (spatial curvature, cosmological constant, equation of state of the matter/energy content). You can then see that all such solutions which fit our observations of the universe (the universe is currently expanding and not all energy in the universe behaves like dark energy) have the property that there was a singularity a finite amount of t ago. As always in general relativity, one has to determine what exactly "t" means. But luckily, for the Robertson-Walker metric, the answer to that is relatively simple: t is the proper time of particles that are at rest relative to the average matter content of the universe (of course up to arbitrary translations). So the result is: General relativity predicts for a universe like ours, that for matter that was at rest relative to the rest of the matter in the universe, only a finite amount of time has passed since a singularity. Time does not slow down near the big bang. Of course that doesn't mean that this is the whole and perfect truth. The very fact that GR predicts a singularity means that GR is incomplete; a singularity is simply not a valid prediction. A theory of quantum gravity is probably necessary to fix that. But I just wanted to correct the error in your first post.

facepalm 12y ago

"New gravity particle" - I wonder what is the point of inventing such things? Does it have any meaning at all? I suspect it is us clinging to our bias of human perception. The only reason it could be useful is maybe if "particle" implies a certain set of behaviors all particles have in common? To make it clearer: what I mean is that the notion of a "gravity particle" only gives us the illusion of something we can grasp, whereas presumably there is no such thing in reality. Edit: downvote, why? It's a serious question.

acd 12y ago

We are here to experiance different things and the purpose of life is to be happy! Maybe the higher dimensions in a quantum world gives us experienced to teach us things that takes many life times to learn. For example humans have not yet learnt that living in peace is better than war. It's basically where science meets eastern Buddhism values. Maybe the universe reborns in cycles expanding and collapsing in forever ending loops and there are parallel universes that exist to this one in higher dimensions.

jrapdx3 12y ago

There was a reference to this article about 2 months ago. I read though the original paper quickly at the time, intending to go back and try to understand it more thoroughly. Toward the end of the paper, I was startled to see the conclusion about the universe having no beginning or end. Struck me as remarkable coming from physicists, then again, they were using "Bohmian trajectories", and Bohm was in his own way an unconventional thinker. In my imagination, Bohm would not have been surprised by an "endless" universe. Fascinating. How strange it will be if "science" winds up "proving" an age-old "spiritual" idea.

sudoinstallwin 12y ago
This post is a good example of verbose that doesn't really say anything. ^
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

Ujio 12y ago

No "beginning" does not mean no "big bang", and "big bang" is a completely shite term to begin with. "God Particle", "Y-Chromosomal Adam", "Mitochondrial Eve" ... the boffins who think this shit up should be (metaphorically) shot.

oelequud 12y ago
Well, the term "big bang" was originally coined by Fred Hoyle, who was a proponent of the alternative steady state model of cosmology. Many belive that it was meant to be pejorative and to ridicule the idea of a "beginning" of the universe. Similarly, "God Particle" isn't a term that was ever used in physics. If I recall correctly, it comes from the title of a popular science book, which the author originally wanted to call "The Goddamn Particle" (because the Higgs was so hard to find experimentally), but the publisher didn't like that. Unfortunately "God Particle" stuck in popular science and the media.

foolmath 12y ago

niubi