Big Bang theory challenged by big chill

Aug 20, 2012

(Phys.org) -- The start of the Universe should be modeled not as a Big Bang but more like water freezing into ice, according to a team of theoretical physicists at the University of Melbourne and RMIT University.

They have suggested that by investigating the cracks and crevices common to all - including ice - our understanding of the nature of the could be revolutionised.

Lead researcher on the project, James Quach said current theorising is the latest in a long quest by humans to understand the origins and nature of the Universe.

"Ancient Greek philosophers wondered what matter was made of: was it made of a continuous substance or was it made of individual atoms?” he said. “With very powerful microscopes, we now know that matter is made of atoms.”

"Thousands of years later, Albert Einstein assumed that space and time were continuous and flowed smoothly, but we now believe that this assumption may not be valid at very small scales.

“A new theory, known as Quantum Graphity, suggests that space may be made up of indivisible building blocks, like tiny . These indivisible blocks can be thought about as similar to pixels that make up an image on a screen. The challenge has been that these building blocks of space are very small, and so impossible to see directly.”

However James Quach and his colleagues believe they may have figured out a way to see them indirectly.

"Think of the early universe as being like a liquid," he said. "Then as the universe cools, it 'crystallises' into the three spatial and one time dimension that we see today. Theorised this way, as the Universe cools, we would expect that cracks should form, similar to the way cracks are formed when water freezes into ice."

RMIT University research team member Associate Professor Andrew Greentree said some of these defects might be visible.

“Light and other particles would bend or reflect off such defects, and therefore in theory we should be able to detect these effects,” he said.

The team has calculated some of these effects and if their predictions are experimentally verified, the question as to whether space is smooth or constructed out of tiny indivisible parts will be solved once and for all.

The team is supported by the Australian Research Council, and their research was published in the latest edition of the journal Physical Review D.

Explore further: Finding faster-than-light particles by weighing them

Related Stories

String theory researchers simulate big-bang on supercomputer

Dec 14, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A trio of Japanese physicists have applied a reformulation of string theory, called IIB, whereby matrices are used to describe the properties of the physical universe, on a supercomputer, to effectively sho ...

Recommended for you

Finding faster-than-light particles by weighing them

Dec 26, 2014

In a new paper accepted by the journal Astroparticle Physics, Robert Ehrlich, a recently retired physicist from George Mason University, claims that the neutrino is very likely a tachyon or faster-than-light par ...

Controlling core switching in Pac-man disks

Dec 24, 2014

Magnetic vortices in thin films can encode information in the perpendicular magnetization pointing up or down relative to the vortex core. These binary states could be useful for non-volatile data storage ...

Atoms queue up for quantum computer networks

Dec 24, 2014

In order to develop future quantum computer networks, it is necessary to hold a known number of atoms and read them without them disappearing. To do this, researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute have developed ...

New video supports radiation dosimetry audits

Dec 23, 2014

The National Physical Laboratory (NPL), working with the National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group, has produced a video guide to support physicists participating in radiation dosimetry audits.

Acoustic tweezers manipulate cell-to-cell contact

Dec 22, 2014

Sound waves can precisely position groups of cells for study without the danger of changing or damaging the cells, according to a team of Penn State researchers who are using surface acoustic waves to manipulate ...

User comments : 87

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Arcbird
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
Interesting... But what about the years of observation that points towards big bang?
clay_ferguson
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
Saying space is 'quantized' is the same as saying 'time' is quantized, because of the constancy of the speed of light.

Here's an interesting blog explaining this concept:
meta64. com/?id=6883
(remove space in the url)

Quantum Mechanics points towards everything being quantized, and therefore Relativity Theory builds up as an 'emergent property' as averages over large spaces and times.

Relativity is to Quantum Mechanics what the "oscillators & spaceships" are to the Conway "Game of Life".
Satene
Aug 20, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
clay_ferguson
3 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2012
Satene, you are being banned because you are a lunatic. I read your aetherwavetheory and it looks like something written by a 10yr old after reading a physics book for one day. You are clearly a troll.
Satene
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 20, 2012
IMO the general problem of all evolutionary models is, they're projecting time dimension into distance. The Universe appears more chaotic with distance like the water surface being observed with its surface waves - but it doesn't mean, it really appears so there. IMO This perspective is observer dependent and if we could travel freely along wast are of Universe, we would see, how the appearance of Universe changes accordingly with our location like the appearance of landscape under the fog. Such a landscape will always appear clear at proximity and foggy at distance - no matter in which place of it we would appear. From this reason I don't think the Universe did explode or freeze at distant perspective - these two perspective just differs with their accent to material objects or CMBR fluctuations.
Satene
1 / 5 (15) Aug 20, 2012
This is how the travel of material particle into density fluctuation (like the black hole) may appear. Note that two perspectives met together here: for falling objects the interior of black hole may appear like very hot and chaotic system (red line), but it may appear like gradually solidifying and freezing environment (blue lines). Both perspectives are essentially correct from their own perspective. This view is partially covered with complementarity of black holes concept.
you are being banned because you are a lunatic
Look, if physicists can take huge money for claims, that the Universe exploded or did freeze in the past - why I shouldn't provide the simple model, which unifies both these perspectives for laymans? If nothing else, I'm providing these explanations for free - which may be the actual source of problem here.
Eikka
3 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2012
Theorised this way, as the Universe cools, we would expect that cracks should form, similar to the way cracks are formed when water freezes into ice.


Cracks in ice form due to internal and external stresses in the crystal lattice, due to the fact that water expands as it freezes and pushes against any container, but also itself. There are many substances that don't do this, and instead form a perfect crystal if left to do so undisturbed by external forces and impurities.

So to expect such cracks to form is kinda begging the question.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
I have long thought that space was quantum particles. Question was are these particles compressible like gasses, or expandable the same way, or can we seemingly 'create' them by removing them from quantum superspace, other dimensional subsets of the eleven dimensional super reality into and out of our present space-time continuum. May this lead to practical space travel. Since at long last, the prospect of spatial dis-continuity is haunting the religion surrounding Prof Einstein, who by the way would have abhorred sycophants as he detested the ignorant and/or incurious, we may start to consider a superset or extension of his theories to allow circumvention of this so called speed limit through quantum mechanical manipulation of space particles themselves. Obviously this has been done on a large scale in the remote past although probably not as grandiose as Fred Hoyle's 'big bang'. I think small scale for ship travel is possible and doable without grandiose energy needs to do it.
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (20) Aug 20, 2012
Look, if physicists can take huge money for claims, that the Universe exploded or did freeze in the past - why I shouldn't provide the simple model, which unifies both these perspectives for laymans? If nothing else, I'm providing these explanations for free - which may be the actual source of problem here.


It's not about money. It's about the fact that your suppositions don't have any merit or plausibility - most of them are simply rhetorical or abuse of scientific terminology - and they only serve as a disruption of this comment board when you write walls of text to advertise your brand of crazy.
jsdarkdestruction
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2012
"A new theory, known as Quantum Graphity, suggests that space may be made up of indivisible building blocks, like tiny atoms. These indivisible blocks can be thought about as similar to pixels that make up an image on a screen. The challenge has been that these building blocks of space are very small, and so impossible to see directly.
how precisely does this challenge the big bang? we already think space is grainy at extremely small distances we cant yet measure...
their being a phase transition that might of left "cosmic strings" when it occured is also nothing new and doesnt challenge the big bang theory. it just sensationalism to try to get attention.....dissappointing. i was hoping for something better.

Satene
Aug 20, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osiris1
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
Arcbird, suppose space is much larger than we think. Not just the observable and supposed unobservable that is receding from us faster than 'c', but the larger space way off that we have not even imagined. Suppose this 'big bang' are really a little bang that looks really 'big' to us from our little corner of a middle aged galaxy in a larger galaxy group in a galactic cluster that is moving with a super cluster toward some 'strange attractor' along with other observable clusters, superclusters, et al. Of course to suppose this is to suppose that space is not flat or smooth, but has compressions and rarefactions like sound waves in many dimensions.
Satene
1 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2012
This doesn't mean, that the quantum graphity of shock wave cosmology cannot bring some insightful predictions, because these models looks at the space-time just from perspective, which is dual to relativistic Big Bang cosmology. For Big Bang the space-time is empty, for the above models it behaves like very dense matter instead. These models are therefore good just in the points, where Big Bang model fails most spectacularly - and vice-versa: these models will not probably very good in native perspective of Big Bang model, based on FLRW metric. IMO this is the stance, in which the educated laymans should judge all these seemingly opposite models: every model is biased by its own definition. This bias enables it to give predictions, but it will lead to the violation of these predictions at the areas outside the validity scope of its postulates.
GenesisNemesis
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2012
"A new theory, known as Quantum Graphity..."

It's not a theory yet. It's a hypothesis. It becomes a theory when it has the necessary experimental evidence and predictive power. I know I'm going to become just another person criticizing PhysOrg articles, but really, PhysOrg?
gopher65
4.9 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2012
"A new theory, known as Quantum Graphity..."

It's not a theory yet. It's a hypothesis. It becomes a theory when it has the necessary experimental evidence and predictive power.

I'd say it's more of a conjecture. This model currently has no evidence to support it, but is nonetheless testable (or will be eventually). A hypothesis has some degree of evidence behind it, but not enough to differentiate between several different, related explanations.
gopher65
4 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2012
String "theory" isn't even a conjecture. In order for something to be a conjecture, it has to be testable and therefore falsifiable. String theory doesn't present any way to test itself, and therefore fails to be anything more than an interesting unscientific model.

Until String theory advances to the point where it is testable, it won't enter into the realm of the scientific method, and thus doesn't qualify as a theory, hypothesis, or conjecture. It may in the future, but for now it doesn't.
Ionian
not rated yet Aug 20, 2012
Seems trivially true to me.
Planck sphere of maximum entropy (for its size), and symmetry is inflated and so cools into our less symmetric structure that we call our universe.

Even a spherical drop of water has more symmetry and less structure, than when cooled to a snowflake which only has discrete hexagonal symmetry, as opposed to spherical symmetry.
R2Bacca
5 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2012
@satene - why I shouldn't provide the simple model, which unifies both these perspectives for laymans


Here's the thing... I love physics. Heck, I even went to college to learn it better. I have a nice piece of parchment paper hanging on my wall that says so. But when I read the stuff you write, all I see is mindless dribble that would do nothing but confuse "the layman". You repeatedly perverse a number of physics subjects and you show a complete lack of understanding of even the basic tenets of the discipline that I so love. The reason the stuff you write isn't "mainstream" is because it is a discombobulated smattering of obscure physics terminology that only you seem to understand.

In other words, knock it off already. Why don't you just switch to poetry?
R2Bacca
5 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2012
...the question as to whether space is smooth or constructed out of tiny indivisible parts will be ***solved once and for all***.


Pretty sure that isn't how science works, but OK.
IronhorseA
2.7 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2012
There was already an experiment reported here on physorg in relation to this where they determined (by examining light traveling large distances through space) that if space isn't smooth its granularity is more than 16 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length which rules out most of the current crop of string theories (at least until they respin them ;P)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2012
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded." Terry Pratchett

"The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists." Wallace Thornhill
TehDog
not rated yet Aug 20, 2012
I wonder if this is supposed to have happened pre or post expansion? First thing I thought of was the large scale filamentary dark matter structures we seem to be seeing.
I'd guess Heisenberg is applicable somewhere in their idea.
Just an idle musing before I go shopping :)
Tuxford
1 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2012
There was already an experiment reported here on physorg in relation to this where they determined (by examining light traveling large distances through space) that if space isn't smooth its granularity is more than 16 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length which rules out most of the current crop of string theories (at least until they respin them ;P)


Small indeed. LaViolette's SubQuantum Kinectics predicts undetectably small units of etheric particles that diffusively migrate and spontaneously react to form sub-atomic particles. The sub-atomic particles we observe are transformative reactions of something much, much smaller. These etherons diffusively distributed in the pre-matter critical state also refract light, what we call dark matter. Deep in empty space, the etheric state is quiescent, with no reactions. Inside galactic core stars, extreme reactions occur, generating new matter.

http://www.tandfo...#preview
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
In fact, these tiny units of space and time were already suggested. Defined arbitrarily on the basis of the claimed observing limits of modern machinery, the unit for time was given as the "Planck interval", on the order of 10^-40 second, and the space component was a sphere whose radius was the distance light would travel in that time.
With respect to Arcbird's "years of observation that point towards the big bang", if they are overturned, it only demontsrates how flimsy any of the "theories" proposed by "science" really are. If they are quietly dismissed and this put in their place, it will prove that "science" is only the doggerel "scinetists" claim, while carefully withholding evidence from the public which would show they are lying.
As for Eikka's comment, substances with water content crack as the water evaporates because it no longer is there to fill in molecular spaces, supposedly, and the entire volume decreases. The point about cracks in ice was a analogy.
clay_ferguson
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2012
@natello, You are exactly right. String theory is doomed. Everything in nature is built on higher-dimensional spheres that radiate outward their influences. All forces in the standard model are based on spheres and they all work. A particle is just a sphere with a small enough radius. String theory only "works" insofar as it does, as a theory because strings are loops, and spheres can be thought of as a series of loops. But the fundamental thing in the universe is obviously not LOOPS! they defacto too complex. I mean, a loop is a series of points. The equations that point to higher dimensions *are* all correct, but it's spheres, not loops. as the fundamental geometry.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2012
@natello, You are exactly right. String theory is doomed. Everything in nature is built on higher-dimensional spheres
IMO it's as schematic model, as the string theory, which considers higher-dimensional membranes in the role of "your spheres". What would that imply? And why the Universe should be composed only of spheres? IMO it's random, the seeming appearance of it is just the projection of our models into it. Just try to realize, how the Universe appears at small and large scales (atom nuclei and stars composed of atom nuclei). Everything is nicely spherical there... But if we get outside of these two dimensional scales, then the things become less and less regular. It has its explanation too and the concept of spheres will not help you with it.
R2Bacca
5 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2012
@natello, that comment was directed at @satene. Unless, of course, you are the same person posting on two different accounts.

That said, the sheer volume of crackpot theories in this thread is laughable, and in fact the hypothesis put forth by the article itself is in the same vein.
daywalk3r
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 20, 2012
There was already an experiment reported here on physorg in relation to this where they determined (by examining light traveling large distances through space) that if space isn't smooth its granularity is more than 16 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length which rules out most of the current crop of string theories (at least until they respin them ;P)
Thanks. Was just going to write about it - then noticed you were faster ;-D

A 2012 publication to promote the "theory" of Quantum Graphity (2006), for which there was allready enough observational evidence gathered in the meantime (2006-2012) to be concluded as falsified..

For example:
http://phys.org/news/2011-06-physics-einstein.html
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2012
and spheres can be thought of as a series of loops
It's very difficult to imagine it and I don't like the things, which are difficult to imagine. To propose really universal theory of everything you should have some strategy for it. IMO the most universal construction of reality must be based on concepts, which are as most transparent and universally valid, as possible. The theories based on special and complex postulates may lead into exact predictions, but these predictions will remain special and limited. IMO people don't care how the nested density fluctuations inside of gas appear. These density fluctuations appear like fuzzy blobs at low pressure (i.e. like the hyperspheres observed from low-dimensional perspective), but when the pressure increases, they change into lowdimensional strings. The single physical model is therefore able to cover two geometric concepts just with change of its parameters.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2012
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded." Terry Pratchett

"The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists." Wallace Thornhill


The first quote is wrong, it is not representative of the big bang theory. No one ever said there was "nothing"... on the contrary, the big bang theory specifically says that there was something, something like quark-gluon plasma... whatever exists when everything is packed together as tightly as possible.

The second quote is due to the same misunderstanding presented in the first.

Congratulations, you have succeeded in spreading ignorance.

This is a public service announcement for everyone, if you don't know a damn thing about a topic, keep your goddamn mouth shut about it, because you end up doing more harm than good. Thank you.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2012
the sheer volume of crackpot theories in this thread is laughable, and in fact the hypothesis put forth by the article itself is in the same vein..
Arthur Schopenhauer: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Carl Sagan: They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

So, how to distinguish the Columbus from Bozo? The laughing is not apparently enough: you will laugh at both. The fact, some idea is presented in peer-reviewed fashion is not apparently enough: you will laugh at both. IMO the only criterion how to recognize the clever insight from stupidity is the allowing it to make testable prediction in sequence of easy to follow logical steps.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2012
This is a public service announcement for everyone, if you don't know a damn thing about a topic, keep your goddamn mouth shut about it
With respect of parity of layman publics one could expect at least half of creationists here. You shouldn't restrict access to public forum for one half of religious citizens of USA just with sentence: "this forum is for everyone" - if nothing else, it just sounds silly...;-) Frankly, I don't know, what is really better: the silly believers in creation, or the silly believers in Big Bang theory at the moment, when nobody of them is willing to think. I'm fighting with ignorance and intolerance of both groups of people for whole my life.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2012
Sure, but when someone laughs at the theory in the same breath that they demonstrate that they don't understand it at all that's when I lose all patience with them.

I'm not saying to restrict anyone's access... I am telling them to recognize their own ignorance and to not comment on that which they are ignorant.

Here's a good way to determine if you are ignorant about a specific topic: If you are talking about something that is ubiquitous in an entire branch of the physical sciences (big bang theory in cosmology, evolution in biology, etc) and you did not study that particular branch of science formally at the university level AT LEAST, then you have no business whatsoever criticizing or pretending that your opinion of it has any value. Shut your mouth and open your ears and learn from those of us that do know what we are talking about.

(this was not directed to you)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2012
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded." Terry Pratchett

"The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists." Wallace Thornhill


The first quote is wrong, it is not representative of the big bang theory. No one ever said there was "nothing"... on the contrary, the big bang theory specifically says that there was something, something like quark-gluon plasma... whatever exists when everything is packed together as tightly as possible.

The second quote is due to the same misunderstanding presented in the first.

Congratulations, you have succeeded in spreading ignorance.

This is a public service announcement for everyone, if you don't know a damn thing about a topic, keep your goddamn mouth shut about it, because you end up doing more harm than good. Thank you.


Those who are spreading ignorance are the Big Bangers, it's a weak unrealistic hypothesis that shouldn't even be considered a theory!
Deathclock
3 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2012
You don't know anything at all about it if you think the first quote you posted is representative of it... Why do you feel qualified to speak about it?

Give a brief summary and list the three 3 main pieces of evidence that support the theory... let's see what you know.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2012
.."In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded." Terry Pratchett "The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists." Wallace Thornhill..
IMO the belief of formation of Universe from nothing is not any better, than the belief in creation - both these "hypothesis" are violating causality in similar rude manner. Not surprisingly, the ability to create something from nothing is just one of attributes of omnipotent God - in this sense the mainstream physics converged into medieval scholastic already - it cannot be more religious, than it already is.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2012
In certain sense the "God creation hypothesis" maintains the causality better, than the schematic "something from nothing" theory. It just points to the emergent aspect of condensation of matter from particle environment: no matter, how this environment is dense and no matter, how it appears transparent - there should be always some minute Brownian noise (CMBR noise) or some other sign of omnipresent deeper reality in it. In this aspect the concept of God can be understood as an allegoric personification of this deeper omnipresent and omnipotent underlying reality, forming the vacuum. It's the personalization of intuitive human experience with causality: something can never happen without deeper reason - no matter how subtle such a reason may appear at the first look. Whereas the mainstream physics resigned to this minimalistic requirement of causality already and defied its own determinism in this way.
clay_ferguson
2.6 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
@ValeriaT, the 'something from nothing' presupposes the existence of time. As relativity shows, time is a warpable entity and just one of the orthoganal dimensions in which we live. Time needs to be thought of as 'part of' our universe, and therefore cannot be used in a speculation of what *created* the universe (whether that thing be intelligent creator or not). So the 'something from nothing' argument actually has no place in discussing the 'beginnings' of things. Time didn't preexist us, and may not even be ABLE to exist without mass first existing. Time is most definitely tied to mass, and didn't need to exist before mass existed.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2012
IMO the belief in the formation of a universe from nothing is not any better, than the belief in creation - both these "hypothesis" are violating causality in similar rude manner. Not surprisingly, the ability to create something from nothing is just one of attributes of omnipotent God - in this sense the mainstream physics converged into medieval scholastic already - it cannot be more religious, than it already is.


THE BIG BANG THEORY DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM NOTHING.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
Time is most definitely tied to mass, and didn't need to exist before mass existed.
This is just my problem with mainstream cosmology at the moment, when it allows the formation of whole Universe from nothing, it violates the causality in the worst manner thinkable. Whereas the realistic physical model would describe the formation of matter in similar way like the condensation of droplet from vapor - there is always something before it. At any case, this problem is already solved for me with Steady-state Universe model - the Universe has no beginning or end, because it doesn't violate causality. The random state of it is more probable, than any particular state, including the zero state. Best of all, this model provides a predictions and postdictions, which the schematic "everything from nothing" model cannot provide by its very non-causal definition.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
THE BIG BANG THEORY DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM NOTHING.
Of course not - it's the invention of few string theorists of recent era. But I don't take it seriously, because it cannot lead into testable predictions in the same way, like the assumption of God. For me it's the hypothesis of the same factual relevance. In addition, it's completely redundant, because the vacuum already exhibits the CMBR noise in similar way, like the supercritical fluid prepared for condensation, it spreads the waves in similar way, like the elastic foam - so why it couldn't undergo some phase transform? Such a transform would explain all other aspects of vacuum at the same moment.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2012
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." Hannes Alfven in regards to the BBT.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
IMO the acceptance of Lemaitre model with mainstream science wasn't a Christian conspiracy, but rather simple consequence of fact, the formal science is reductionist and schematic by its very nature and it has no problem with zero number. It tends to ignore all subtle deviations from theories until they become really unpleasant obstacle for further evolution of physics. And the formal math is atemporal by its very nature - the time concept doesn't follow from formal geometry in any way and what is valid in abstract math remains valid for ever - with compare to always changing physical reality. It's not strange, after then, the formally thinking physicists have no problem with absence of time and with formation of something from zero state: the physical functions are doing it all the time..
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2012
THE BIG BANG THEORY DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT THE UNIVERSE CAME FROM NOTHING.
Of course not - it's the invention of few string theorists of recent era. But I don't take it seriously, because it cannot lead into testable predictions in the same way, like the assumption of God. For me it's the hypothesis of the same factual relevance. In addition, it's completely redundant, because the vacuum already exhibits the CMBR noise in similar way, like the supercritical fluid prepared for condensation, it spreads the waves in similar way, like the elastic foam - so why it couldn't undergo some phase transform? Such a transform would explain all other aspects of vacuum at the same moment.


My apologies then, and I agree with you... I don't believe in ultimate beginning or ending. We have no evidence that anything actually had an origin or a demise. We have never witnessed the creation or destruction of energy, so why believe in it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (18) Aug 20, 2012
it only demontsrates how flimsy any of the "theories" proposed by "science" really are. If they are quietly dismissed and this put in their place, it will prove that "science" is only the doggerel "scinetists" claim, while carefully withholding evidence from the public which would show they are lying.
Yes and once we discredit science we will leave people like this to determine what is true and what is not;
http://www.youtub...j-weI5FE

"...if its a legitimate rape the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

-Doctors told him this. I assume they were proper, god-fearing doctors.

These are the kinds of people that people like julian have elected to represent their interests in the US Congress, and to decide whether scientists are 'lying' or not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2012
My apologies then, and I agree with you... I don't believe in ultimate beginning or ending. We have no evidence that anything actually had an origin or a demise. We have never witnessed the creation or destruction of energy, so why believe in it?
I dont know where DOES an electron get its charge from? Space? No, seriously.
clay_ferguson
1 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2012
@ValeriaT, BTW I didn't explain enough on spheres (v.s. strings), to which i appreciate your reply. I simply mean that all of the Standard Model concerns itself with points of charge or mass that create spherical vector fields around them (force fields). The superposition of many of these spherical fields is what creates the "illusion" of any geometries that are not spherical. Each atom has shapes that are specific, and atoms combine to create larger shapes obviously, but all that "exists" in reality are spherical influences superimposing on each other. No static or dynamic force is ever anything other than spherical. Light radiates outward as a sphere. Gravity does also. The TOE when found, will be based on simple spheres and multiple dimensions.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2012
Electron has two charges - it's formed with transverse wave of vacuum foam resonating with the longitudinal wave. Inside of foam every wave makes this foam dense, so that both standing waves are revolving each other around common center of mass like massive particles - this rotation creates both charges.
The superposition of many of these spherical fields is what creates the "illusion" of any geometries that are not spherical
Why not, but you're reversing causality arrow here: it's less demanding to consider the universe random and to derive some spherical geometries from it at the certain distance scales - than the vice-versa. If we are random and the rest of universe is random too, then we would observe our environment as composed of regular spheres at two distance scales (considerably larger and smaller ones) - but not at another ones - which is exactly what we are observing in our universe by now.
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
I dont know where DOES an electron get its charge from? Space? No, seriously.


For all intents and purposes an electron IS a negative charge...
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
Electron "is" a weak nuclear charge and a negative electrostatic charge (mass, spin, velocity and many other quantities). What we need is the believable explanation, how all these properties are linked together.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (18) Aug 20, 2012
so that both standing waves are revolving each other around common center of mass like massive particles - this rotation creates both charges.
Particles rotating around other particles radiate energy. Where does this energy come from? Why does it not dissipate?
Moebius
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2012
"Albert Einstein assumed that space and time were continuous and flowed smoothly, but we now believe that this assumption may not be valid at very small scales."

That has to be wrong for the same reason there are atoms. Nothing can be perfectly smooth or continuous. It would require infinity and nothing is infinite.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
Particles rotating around other particles radiate energy. Where does this energy come from? Why does it not dissipate?

They're dancing around like the pollen grains in the water. They getting their energy from Brownian motion of particles of their environment (which are moving from the same reason, recursively). The asking for origin of this random motion has no good meaning from causality perspective, because the random state is more probable, than any particular state, including the zero state without motion. The question for beginning just brings more questions than answers, so it's not good way for final answer from Occam razor perspective.
the_epi
not rated yet Aug 20, 2012
conway's game of life applied to the whole universe.
i say this because of the lower limit... the plank scale.

how about that?
Caliban
1 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2012
For now, it sounds like a conceptual/semantic distinction in regards to BB cosmology.

We'll have to wait and see if direct observation lends any support to the hypothesis.
TheWalrus
not rated yet Aug 20, 2012
I thought Planck Length and Planck Time was settled science as of about several decades ago.
daywalk3r
3.9 / 5 (14) Aug 20, 2012
I dont know where DOES an electron get its charge from? Space? No, seriously.
From the sole existence of its evil twin, teh positron!

Which leads to an even more serious question.. Where are all teh positrons hiding? ;-)

They getting their energy from Brownian motion
And I'm getting my presents from Santa.. Boooohooo!

The asking for origin of this random motion has no good meaning
Yea! Never question God, as the ways of God are inscrutable! Riiiight...

Allways suspected a religious zealot hiding behind all those countless nicks of yours.. Gotcha! ;-D

I thought Planck Length and Planck Time was settled science as of about several decades ago.
When it comes to energy propagation in the form of photons, they are. Though that has probably little to do with the "granularity" of space/time.
Argiod
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
I think we need to trash the entire concept of any sort of 'beginning' to this infinite universe. Big Bang and such like are archaic left-overs from ignorant early christian, specifically Catholic, origins. It is time to pull our heads out of our collective sphincters and start over.

First off: the Big Bang theory flies in the face of the basic tenet of Physics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only change form.

Second: the Big Bang theory cannot exist simultaneously with black holes... in a black hole, not even light (which is massless) can escape... so, if the whole of what we can perceive were present in an infinitesimal point, there would have been NO force that could have overcome the gravity to make it go 'bang'...

Axiom: Paradox is always the child of False Premise
MrVibrating
1.5 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2012
I've witnessed creation and destruction of energy - soon so will everyone else. Soonish, anyhoo. Some cosmologists have recently been suggesting that the universe popping out of nothingness is simply an inescapable consequence of Heisenberg's ignorance principle - in much the same manner as virtual particles. But then that still posits a non-zero vacuum potential independent of our universe - ie. we need to narrow our definition of "universe" to something more subjective.

This admittedly seems troublesome, and yet some kind of multiverse looks increasingly inevitable. Maybe we'll see dents of other, "bubble" universes in the CMBR... who knows, but the vacuum seems to be independent of our universe - and its activity will survive our heat death. Thus if the vacuum is more fundamental, then so too must be 'some' dimension of time.

Relativity might not require a "before", but the vacuum's activity does...
SatanLover
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2012
the big bang religion is causing some cats to make crazy jumps.
MrVibrating
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2012
@Argiod - so how to refute say Hubble's observation of ongoing expansion? Rewind time and it all coalesces. Everything about the theory is cross-referenced across the board - we KNOW we're 13.7 billion years into proceedings. How else to explain consistency between lambda, observable horizon, type 1a supernova distances etc etc.? As has been said, we very definitely grew out of a quark-gluon plasma...

And because we know it's all still accelerating, we know dark energy > net gravity....

clay_ferguson
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2012
@ValeriaT, that's very close to 'my belief' but where do you get **two** charges from ? Are you saying sometimes electrons can become positrons, sometimes ? As a direct transition? If the transition was happening a LOT then the net measured would be zero charge, right?

BTW: to everyone posting, this is a great thread. I love seeing a debate on science!

@MrVibrating @argoid, The rate of expansion of the universe is merely evidence that higher dimensions that we cannot directly see also experience what we call 'mass' and the existence if this 'extra mass' should not cause us to throw up our hands or try to figure out what it is other than a 'mass-related' effect from a higher dimension. Our "measure" of dark matter is merely a confirmation of higher dimensions. Not some sort of "disproof" of our current laws.
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2012
@natello, that comment was directed at @satene. Unless, of course, you are the same person posting on two different accounts.

That said, the sheer volume of crackpot theories in this thread is laughable, and in fact the hypothesis put forth by the article itself is in the same vein.

it is, zephyr keep plenty of sock puppets. you can tell by his flawed logic its him.
ziphead
1 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2012
Unlike some of the participants in this thread who believe that they "know" how the Universe happened, I do not.

I do however strongly believe that the next big physicist of the 21st century will in fact be a computer scientist.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2012
there was no big bang at all, universe is in a permanent dynamic equilibrium. In black holes where energy density of quantum vacuum is at the minimum, matter transform into energy of quantum vacuum in outer intergalactic space where energy density of quantum vacuum is at the maximum, energy of quantum vacuum transform into cosmic waves which are origin of elementary particles which form matter. This process is eternal, no beginning no end.
hcnap
1 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2012
I don't believe in any such theories. The simple fact is that these are beyond even human imagination. It is like the created trying to understand the creator - the nature. Lot of people fear accepting it.
jsdarkdestruction
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2012
you guys look for any excuse you can to attack the big bang theory dont you? guess what, even if the big bang theory was wrong, it doesnt mean your theory is right. you need to do the math and back it up. strawman attacks are a waste of your time and the people of this sites time. why not spend it improving your theory and figuring out how to prove its the correct one if you are so sure?
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2012
I've witnessed creation and destruction of energy - soon so will everyone else. Soonish, anyhoo.


Are you talking about conversion from matter to energy? I don't make a distinction between the two. Matter is merely energy above a certain density threshold. Mass-energy equivalency, E = mc^2.

No one has ever witnessed the creation or destruction of matter/energy, so why believe in this concept of "origin" of the universe?

The null hypothesis should be that of an eternal universe. We know it exists now, we know it existed in the distant past, and we have no plausible explanation for it's ultimate origin... so why believe there was one?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (16) Aug 21, 2012
@ValeriaT, that's very close to 'my belief' but where do you get **two** charges from ? Are you saying sometimes electrons can become positrons, sometimes ? As a direct transition? If the transition was happening a LOT then the net measured would be zero charge, right?
Greg Bear actually postulated this in 'Anvil of Stars', the idea that you could turn matter into antimatter at a distance:
http://en.wikiped...of_Stars

-He proposed it as a planet-killing weapon. Yeah it is scifi but as a 'hard' scifi writer, bear took great pains to base his ideas on science. Apparently scientists somewhere were at least musing about it.
clay_ferguson
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2012
@deathclock, the big bang was probably more of a "big intersection" where everything in our universe happened to be 'co-colocated' from the perspective if a higher-dimensional being. If you look at the direction of motion of all galaxies they are all expanding away from each other. That means they likely all came from the same source location. I think all the particles that exist today became 'entangled' during that singularity,and that is where the fundamental properties came from. Where they 'locked in'. The speed of light is determined by how rapidly our 4 dimensions happen to be 'passing thru' the higher dimensions during that first entanglement. The end of the universe will come when all particles in this universe experience the same Quantum Mechanical wave function collapse, from that original entanglement, and re-collapse to another singularity, triggering another 'big intersection'. It just keeps repeating.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2012
where everything in our universe happened to be 'co-colocated' from the perspective if a higher-dimensional being
At the water surface all ripples will get scattered with underwater at distance - and the water surface still exists there. The seeming existence of space-time singularity at distance is just a local optical illusion of yours due the cumulative light scattering with inhomogeneities of vacuum.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2012
NO air molecules: No Bang! No "particles" moving within a singularity: So no temperature. Cold: Yes. Inflation: YES!!! We should call it the the SOFT EFFUSION. Just a single-wave with a continuous density, inflating instantaneously, followed by the formation of micro-wave background radiation (MWBR) and then the precipitation of neutrons which decay into electrons, protons and neutrino's. Only now these entities are heated by the MWBR to generate high temperature. No other building blocks required, The present zoo of "particles" are only excited states of electrons and protons. A more colourful term would be to call the Big Bang the SOFT F--T. Nobody notices it until its effects are starting to take hold.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2012
The water surface analogy doesn't insist, that this surface must be flat - on the contrary, in random Universe model the space-time can be never flat anywhere. So if you want to see a true Big Bang, just take a look at the warm part of CMBR dipole anisotropy. This is the real place, where the Universe gets hotter than the average. But the red-shift trend, which is observable with distance? Nope, it's just a dispersion of light and no true change of Universe is behind it.

If this model is correct, there should be a subtle corellation of quasar concentration with dipole anisotropy. Not to say about some physical constants, like speed of light, gravity and small structure constant. The more dense vacuum would do the matter more lightweight and transparent - and this is just what these constants are about.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2012
A few remarkably relevent quotes if I may, from REAL scientists completely unlike the fools involved in the circus reported in this article.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla.

We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture. Hannes Alfvén.

"The universe is an unending transformation in flux whose previous states we are not privileged to know." David Bohm.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. Richard Feynman.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2012

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla.
Good quote. The situation even became worse since Tesla. It is ironic that you also quote David Bohm and Richard Feynman who are both culprits in terms of Tesla's statement. Why did you forget Paul Dirac who was THE master of fudging mathematics instead of trying to understand physics-reality?

clay_ferguson
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2012
I don't even think ValeriaT is even a real person. Looks like bot-generated text to me. Complete nonsense. This thread definitely devolved into chaos and lunacy.

@CantDrive85: The genuinely "good" crazy ideas and rampant speculations are, however, WHERE scientists get their ideas about what "experiment" to try next. Nobody believed Einstein's crazy "mass warps space" idea until that crazy idea gave them the "idea" to try looking for shifts in starlight bent as they cross by the sun. So crazy ideas are good, as long as the crazy idea comes form a genuinely smart person like me. Not a lunatic like ValeriaT...or the rest of the idiots on this thread.
clay_ferguson
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2012
Natello, I think u r a 10yr old. I read what you write, merely for it's comedic value.
unknownorgin
1 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2012
I do not pretend to know the exact proccess of how matter was formed but at some point in time there could have only been space and time and nothing else.
DarkHorse66
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2012
@clay ferguson: Being a new member to phys.org, you might not yet have realised that people will sometimes choose to communicate directly with you. It pays to check your user account for PM's (personal messages) now and again. :) (Also, a small message that you have new PM's might appear in the 'category bars') You will always know whether your message has been read or not, because a 'sent email' will tell you if it hasn't been opened by the addressee (ie say 'not read'). ;] Best Regards, DH66
clay_ferguson
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2012
@DH66, thanks for letting me know. I appreciate it.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2012
Natello, I think u r a 10yr old. I read what you write, merely for it's comedic value.


Says the guy using "u" and "r" to stand in for the words "you" and "are"... You also did not need a comma in the second sentence, it's out of place.
clay_ferguson
1 / 5 (4) Aug 23, 2012
natello, thanks for the tip on how to behave. Very helpful.
The Lords Little Helper
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2012
Theory Challenged what a joke!

As you say Ancient Greek Philosophers. Archimedes one of the World two most Brilliant Scientist ever. Archimedes disproved many so called Philosophers many times. This is told by Many a Greek Historian like Yalef Yachts owner Bill Lefakinis to many a World Traveler. Bill has keep the wealth of Greek History alive and the best Yacht service in the World. Even Archimedes said there is a GOD and creator of all things. Archimedes looked to the heavens above and studied them more than most any Philosopher, Scientist and so called researcher. Archimedes told this to the world in tons of writing. You want to discover something go to see the wealth of Greece on board one of the many of Yalef yachts. To see for your self were Archimedes and his father know to all as the Astronomer looked to the heavens above.

The Lord's Little Helper
Paul Felix Schott

mrlewish
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2012
So what does this mean? Where do you want to eat?
Big Bang Burger Bar or Milliways?
SatanLover
1 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
you guys look for any excuse you can to attack the big bang theory dont you? guess what, even if the big bang theory was wrong, it doesnt mean your theory is right. you need to do the math and back it up. strawman attacks are a waste of your time and the people of this sites time. why not spend it improving your theory and figuring out how to prove its the correct one if you are so sure?

Are you not embarrassed by the fact that a Belgium priest came up with the idea? And you are right, just because the big bang is false doesnt give these loons the right to come up with another false theory.
CyberCod
not rated yet Aug 27, 2012
This has probably been pointed out already, but on the slim chance that it has not:

Ice, as we think of it is frozen water, yes, but is a rock not just frozen lava? I have seen steel run like water, with enough heat.

This theory does not conflict with the Big Bang theory, it only describes the cooling period. Stop getting tripped out by the usage of the word "ice".
clay_ferguson
1.3 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
@(CyberCod Natello), liquids are not a fundamental 'thing'. They are just points sliding around each other. The points, are the 'things'. If it can be studied by 'finite element analysis' using only 'elements math' then you need to look at 'the elements' like the rest of science does. Liquids can't exist without 'points' any more than 'temperature' can exist without atoms...unless you are talking Quantum Fields... which you claim NOT to be, and therefore are wrong.

Also, the Big Bang doesn't presuppose the existence of either space or time, necessarily.
rwinners
1.3 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2012
Interesting. I hold the view that space is infinitely large and that particles of matter are infinitely small. We will always suffer from the inability to see in the extremes.
Woe is us.
rwinners
2 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
no comment
Estevan57
Sep 28, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.