The Big Bang might have been just a Big Bounce

July 12, 2016 by Hayley Dunning
Credit: Imperial College London

A new study of the early universe reveals how it could have been formed from an older collapsing universe, rather than being brand new.

The universe is currently expanding and it is a common theory that this is the result of the 'Big Bang' – the universe bursting into existence from a point of infinitely dense and hot material.

However, physicists have long debated this idea as it means the universe began in a state of complete breakdown of physics as we know it. Instead, some have suggested that the universe has alternated between periods of expansion and contraction, and the current expansion is just one phase of this.

This so-called 'Big Bounce' idea has been around since 1922, but has been held back by an inability to explain how the universe transitions from a contracting to an expanding state, and vice versa, without leading to an infinite point.

Now, in a new study published today in Physical Review Letters, Dr Steffen Gielen from Imperial College London and Dr Neil Turok, Director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, have shown how the Big Bounce might be possible.

Broken Symmetry

Cosmological observations suggest that during its very early life, the universe may have looked the same at all scales – meaning that the physical laws that that worked for the whole structure of the universe also worked at the scale of the very small, smaller than individual atoms. This phenomenon is known as conformal symmetry.

In today's universe, this is not the case – particles smaller than atoms behave very differently to larger matter and the symmetry is broken. Subatomic particle behaviour is governed by what is called , which produces different rules of physics for the very small.

The Big Bang might have been just a Big Bounce
Dr Gielen (L) and Dr Turok (R). Credit: Imperial College London

For example, without quantum mechanics, atoms would not exist. The electrons, as they whizz around the nucleus, would lose energy and collapse into the centre, destroying the atom. However, quantum mechanics prevents this from happening.

In the , as everything was incredibly small, it may have been governed solely by the principles of quantum mechanics, rather than the large-scale physics we also see today.

In the new study, the researchers suggest that the effects of quantum mechanics could prevent the universe from collapsing and destroying itself at end of a period of contraction, known as the Big Crunch. Instead, the universe would transition from a contracting state to an expanding one without collapsing completely.

Dr Gielen said: "Quantum mechanics saves us when things break down. It saves electrons from falling in and destroying atoms, so maybe it could also save the early universe from such violent beginnings and endings as the Big Bang and Big Crunch."

Simple Ingredients

Using the idea that the universe had conformal symmetry at its beginning, and that this was governed by the rules of quantum mechanics, Dr Gielen and Dr Turok built a mathematical model of how the universe might evolve.

The model contains a few simple ingredients that are most likely to have formed the early universe, such as the fact that it was filled with radiation, with almost no normal matter. With these, the model predicts that the effect of quantum mechanics would allow the universe to spring from a previous universe that was contracting, rather than from a single point of broken physics.

Dr Turok said: "The big surprise in our work is that we could describe the earliest moments of the hot Big Bang quantum mechanically, under very reasonable and minimal assumptions about the matter present in the universe. Under these assumptions, the Big Bang was a 'bounce', in which contraction reversed to expansion."

The researchers are now investigating how this simple model can be extended to explain the origin of perturbations to the simple structure of the universe, such as galaxies. "Our model's ability to give a possible solution to the problem of the Big Bang opens the way to new explanations for the formation of the ," said Dr Gielen.

Explore further: Quantum steps towards the Big Bang

More information: Steffen Gielen et al. Perfect Quantum Cosmological Bounce, Physical Review Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.021301

Related Stories

Quantum steps towards the Big Bang

September 3, 2013

(Phys.org) —Present-day physics cannot describe what happened in the Big Bang. Quantum theory and the theory of relativity fail in this almost infinitely dense and hot primal state of the universe. Only an all-encompassing ...

Why is space three-dimensional?

May 3, 2016

(Phys.org)—The question of why space is three-dimensional (3D) and not some other number of dimensions has puzzled philosophers and scientists since ancient Greece. Space-time overall is four-dimensional, or (3 + 1)-dimensional, ...

Theorists apply loop quantum gravity theory to black hole

May 31, 2013

(Phys.org) —Physicists Rodolfo Gambini and Jorge Pullin of University of the Republic in Montevideo, Uruguay, and Louisiana State University respectively, have applied the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) to a simplified ...

Recommended for you

New technique promises tunable laser devices

September 19, 2017

Whispering gallery mode (WGM) resonators are used to make tiny micro-lasers, sensors, switches, routers and other devices. These tiny structures rely on a phenomenon similar to an effect observed in circular galleries, such ...

Nonlinear physics bridges thoughts to sounds in birdsong

September 19, 2017

The beautiful sound of birdsongs emerging from the trees is a wonderful example of how much nature can still teach us, even as much about their origins are still mysterious to us. About 40 percent of bird species learn to ...

102 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nikola_milovic_378
Jul 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Jul 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Jul 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (34) Jul 12, 2016
Would you mind writing in english? Your posts are a completely garbled mess

ALL SORTS OF THINGS !!!!!!


Oh my...Multiple exclamation marks.

'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.'
-- Terrys Pratchett (Eric)
katesisco
1.6 / 5 (29) Jul 12, 2016
ALL THINGS OLD ARE NEW AGAIN
Needless to say, the astronomers Burbidge were strong proponents of the expanding/collapsing universe theory. They are dead so of course the theory is resurrected as new and acceptable.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2016
There's one curious idea that when all the matter eventually vanishes into energy - because no particle is fundamentally stable - then "space" loses meaning because distance, volume etc. is relative to the things in it, and with no things in it you can't tell whether it's big or small.

So the final collapse happens when the final particles of matter - spread very very far apart - dissapear one by one into radiation or quantum fluctuations, or whatever. Suddenly the universe is small again, and all the energy and information that ever was is concentrated on that last remaining bit of stuff that now defines the size of everything and the density of it - and it goes boom.

The same idea could extend to why the universe is expanding in the first place, because as matter turns to energy, the energy is divided to act upon the remaining matter, which pushes it further and further apart. Energy after all is not a "thing" or an entity by itself and, but a relationship of things.
bschott
1.3 / 5 (25) Jul 12, 2016
So if the big bounce is a viable theory, are BH's still part of it? Just asking because QM would have to apply to that collapse as well wouldn't it?
charlimopps
1 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2016
Eikka - Is this something you came up with on your own or did you read it somewhere?
Shootist
1.3 / 5 (23) Jul 12, 2016
Eikka have you ever witnessed or do you know anyone who has ever witnessed a proton decay?
Eikka
5 / 5 (16) Jul 12, 2016
Eikka - Is this something you came up with on your own or did you read it somewhere?


I can't remember who said it or where.

Eikka have you ever witnessed or do you know anyone who has ever witnessed a proton decay?


Nope, but if it happens it's probably going to have a half-life longer than 10^34 years.
MyBackHurts
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2016
I thought we were expanding faster than gravity can collapse us?
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (16) Jul 12, 2016
I thought we were expanding faster than gravity can collapse us?
This is one major problem with the hypothesis.
KaFaraqGatri
Jul 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Steelwolf
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2016
Now, this sort of Article shows what I have been trying to explain for some time, and that the Universe that we experience has been recently shown to have the same 'boundaries' as Standard Quantum Mechanical Systems, and that this would apply to the greater universe as well as to the smaller. Why I have always used the constraint of lightspeed as a Constant is to be able to scale atoms and galaxies, electrons to globular clusters by using the time it would take to cross each, and scale one to the other. Thus the 100,000 years it would take light to cross our galaxy compared to the pico-pico seconds it takes to cross the distance of a Rubidium atom and THEN start looking at the correlations between how galaxies form (by fusion) just as atoms do, and the smaller scales will sort themselves out, all things being equal, local acts on local, yet it is a fractal iteration, and the conformal symmetry is still there, just acting themselves out at different speeds due to size difference.
HeloMenelo
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2016
Eikka have you ever witnessed or do you know anyone who has ever witnessed a proton decay?

it's happening in your skull, everytime before you post using your sock.
HeloMenelo
4.5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2016
Oop 2 of your 30 odd socks, i see biscuit joined in also ;)
Steelwolf
1.2 / 5 (19) Jul 12, 2016
You can consider also that our present Universe also looks somewhat like what they are talking about, the 'vacuum of Space' is constantly filled with radiation from all sorts of sources, the photons going through a single centimeter of 'space' varies radically, yet it can be fairly said that there is little matter and much radiation in this Universe, by the amount of light created from the star manufacture of galaxies to the high energy cosmic rays from Quasars and other deep, high energy sources. We even know that much of the space within an atom is actually vacuum as well, and as we probe smaller and smaller we find more and more similarities, as well as finding that electrons are more akin to a cloud than a solid particle. Too many recent articles all have pointed to the same thing, sometimes I do not post because the impolitical sockpuppet team comes and buries it anyhow with their inanities and pure trollishness. My theories keep on being proven no matter how denied.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2016
Nope, but if it happens it's probably going to have a half-life longer than 10^34 years.

Which pretty much means any one or thing with a mere half-life of 34 years, never will...
See? I can do some math...:-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2016
There's one curious idea that when all the matter eventually vanishes into energy - because no particle is fundamentally stable - then "space" loses meaning because distance, volume etc. is relative to the things in it, and with no things in it you can't tell whether it's big or small
Except that as energy in all its forms is bound by c, this enables in theory the determination of vector and scalar quantities, which can then be used to define 'space'.
javjav
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2016
@Eikka, I don't get what you mean. Energy creates gravity even if it is not on the form of mass, and spacetime is equally warped where there is energy. This also changes the geometry and paths of energy waves accordingly. A universe with energy but without spacetime is a very different universe compared to one where you have both.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2016
Too many recent articles all have pointed to the same thing, sometimes I do not post because the impolitical sockpuppet team comes and buries it anyhow with their inanities and pure trollishness. My theories keep on being proven no matter how denied.

Hate to break it to ya, but "you're" theories have already been previously provided by others...
epoxy
Jul 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (19) Jul 12, 2016
The redshift is product of scattering of light at the vacuum fluctuations in otherwise steady-state Universe, which looks like the surface of water observed by its own waves for us. At the sufficient distance all ripples get scattered into underwater and red-shifted - but it doesn't mean, that the surface was formed there.
I think zephyr is composed entirely of protons. He will not be decaying any time soon.
Steelwolf
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2016
Sorry for double post But yes, I know others have seen the similarities also, but it has only been with recent tech to be able to detect the things that had been unobservable before. My own thoughts have not always aligned with some of the theories, and have happily seen then be disproven, and at times have had to revise my model with new info, but usually this is just bringing a finer grain to the observed, at both ends of the scale. Still, I learn avidly and am not stuck on JUST one theory, there is plenty of space and time and energy for not only Anything to happen, but for Everything to happen. But that becomes a philosophical point that has neither as much anything.
Steelwolf
1.2 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2016
I have been trying to explain this since the late '60s, and scientific observations, clearer and deeper as our instrumentation has gotten better, and further and further it has kept close to my original predictions of what would be found by the different fields of searching, both the micro and the macro and the fractal iterations that are created by them, there can be wide 'spaces' or 'distances' between the matching of visibly scalar iterations, thus for us studying atoms and finding Galaxies and those studying Galaxies find them forming Molecular patterns, but that scale match skips over our scale and rate of living.

Of course, this radically changes what the prevailing thought to the size of this Universe, showing that our "Big Bang' may have just been a local density fluctuation in a Much Larger medium where enough 'Energy' become 'Matter' in a local fashion, perhaps in the heart of a star, since that seems to be where much visible mass resides.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2016
I thought we were expanding faster than gravity can collapse us?

Yes, but the expansion doesn't seem to be constant. Currently it looks like it's accelerating. While that is very opposite to a collapsing universe it does make the point that the expansion rate is variable.
It *might* reverse in the future - though there is currently no reason to think it will - but there's also no known reason to think it must not. So the question of a big rip vs a big crunch/bounce is still an unsolved one (current events heavily favoring the big rip scenario)

All the paper is saying that if we go for a big crunch then it is conceivable that there is a limit to the crunch imposed by quantum physics (i.e. that there will be a bounce rather than a crunch)
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2016
I have been trying to explain this since the late '60s, and scientific observations, clearer and deeper as our instrumentation has gotten better, and further and further it has kept close to my original predictions of what would be found by the different fields of searching, both the micro and the macro and the fractal iterations that are created by them, there can be wide 'spaces' or 'distances' between the matching of visibly scalar iterations, thus for us studying atoms and finding Galaxies and those studying Galaxies find them forming Molecular patterns, but that scale match skips over our scale and rate of living.

I, too had these thoughts in the 60s and 70s (hell, even from the 80s til now). However, I never presumed they were originally mine. I understood (and still do) I was just covering the same ground others have already...
BTW, I'm still waiting for all the flashbacks they promised...
You?

Eikka
4 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2016
Energy creates gravity even if it is not on the form of mass, and spacetime is equally warped where there is energy.


As far as I understand, "energy" per se doesn't exist - it always manifests in the relationship of something physical, such as the relative kinetic energy between two bodies of mass receding from one another. If one body vanishes in a puff of radiation, what becomes of the kinetic energy?
javjav
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2016
Eikka, if an object disappears in a "puff of radiation" the energy is carried as momentum by the radiated particles ( photons) .

To me, what it does not exist per se is matter, as matter is just a property of Energy. Matter is just energy enclosed in a small space, which we perceive as "matter"
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2016
Radiation *is* energy.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2016
As far as I understand, "energy" per se doesn't exist - it always manifests in the relationship of something physical, such as the relative kinetic energy between two bodies of mass receding from one another.

Or approaching one another...
If one body vanishes in a puff of radiation, what becomes of the kinetic energy?

If I understand correctly, the radiative particles will stay carry it.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2016
Actually, @Whyde, this is an interesting question.

Consider carefully: the amount of kinetic energy a body has varies with its velocity.

But velocity is relative.

So in one frame of reference a given body has enormous kinetic energy, but in another it has none.

This is what @Eikka is thinking of.

But radiation always moves at the speed of light- for both gravity and EM radiation, anyway- in all frames. What varies from frame to frame is its momentum; this is obvious from the fact that its frequency varies from frame to frame.

Energy is conserved in a consistent frame, but is not conserved across frames. It is asymmetric with respect to velocity.

You'll enjoy thinking your way through that, I think.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2016
I have been trying to explain this since the late '60s, and scientific observations, clearer and deeper as our instrumentation.....

I, too had these thoughts in the 60s and 70s (hell, even from the 80s til now). However, I never presumed they were originally mine. I understood (and still do) I was just covering the same ground others have already...
BTW, I'm still waiting for all the flashbacks they promised...
You?


Please correct me, but I think A. E. considered a cyclic nature of the universe in the 1920's and Richard Tolman came up up with a similar idea involving entropy...that each cycle would be different due to increase in entropy...or something like that. However it does go back much further. An oscillating universe was considered as far back as approx 1000 BC although, of course, the ideas were much different then (Cosmic Egg etc). One wonders just how far back it really does go, Ha!
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2016
Actually, @Whyde, this is an interesting question.

Think I'm stickin with my thought.
Given that c is a radius and volume of a sphere = 4/3x3.14xr^3, in one second the volume of that kinetic energy is now spread over (shared) is just shy of 27 quadrillion cubic miles...

That's a lot of disapation.

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2016
Please correct me, but I think A. E. considered a cyclic nature of the universe in the 1920's

Not too informed on that, but am more interested in his thoughts on shape (quasi-spherical)
d Richard Tolman came up up with a similar idea involving entropy...that each cycle would be different due to increase in entropy...or something like that.

Would make sense in that each iteration would carry different information... Not so sure on entropy increases, tho...
However it does go back much further. An oscillating universe was considered as far back as approx 1000 BC although, of course, the ideas were much different then (Cosmic Egg etc). One wonders just how far back it really does go, Ha!

Don't forget the Ombron...:-)
Most systems of a physical nature tend to have a loopback built in...
antigoracle
1 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2016
I thought we were expanding faster than gravity can collapse us?

Yep, that's called the Big Bind.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2016
Actually, @Whyde, this is an interesting question.

Think I'm stickin with my thought.
Given that c is a radius and volume of a sphere = 4/3x3.14xr^3, in one second the volume of that kinetic energy is now spread over (shared) is just shy of 27 quadrillion cubic miles...

That's a lot of disapation.
Actually if all the energy is released in a single pulse it won't be spread through the volume but across the surface area.

That's 4πr² which is 3767 km².
rrrander
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 13, 2016
@aapo I don't think we can get through to him. I wrote him something in Serbian using Google translate that was just intelligible but full of the same kind of errors to illustrate and it just went right over his head. Oh, here's the thread; at the bottom. http://phys.org/n...pse.html

I'm 99% he's translating that from Serbian.


I'd have figured he was posting from a remote cabin in Wyoming or something.
Pumastar
1 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2016

ello
Pumastar
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2016
I thought we were expanding faster than gravity can collapse us?

Yep, that's called the Big Bind.

nope those 2 cornseeds that popped into pocorn in your skull, That is where the bang happened, as quickly as it banged, it shrunk and bound the 2 seeds into one, sigh... no there's only one in that hollow skull of yours.
ohmrasankar
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2016
( Sorry for my poor english ). Scientists think and speak only about stars, black holes, galaxies etc. They cannot have power to think about the empty space that contain all these. Empty space is supreme. Empty space is omnipresence. Empty space is omnipotence. Empty space omniscience. Empty space is the ALMIGHTY.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2016
. Scientists think and speak only about stars, black holes, galaxies etc. They cannot have power to think about the empty space that contain all these.

1) your post makes no sense (just calling something 'allmighty' doesn't *mean* anything)
2) you may have heard about this thing called Relativity. It very much deals with the 'empty space'
3) you may have heard about this thing calledvaccuum fluctuations (or more precisely: quantum fluctuations). It also very much deals with the 'empty space'

So before you accuse scientists about not thinking about something here's a hint: FIRST try to find out what they actually think (by reading their stuff). Otherwise you're just showing off your lack of education.
Mimath224
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2016
@antialias_physorg yep, and besides I think there's a lot of people that might have issue with a/the almighty being 'empty'....sorry, I just couldn't resist that one, Ha!
Steelwolf
1.9 / 5 (16) Jul 13, 2016
Mimath and Physorg, I have a curveball on that, if you want to go philosophical and religious you can consider the question "How can 'God' know Everything unless It/S/He IS Everything?" and all that entails.

But yes, the idea of actual Infinite time and space, in All Directions has indeed been around for a very long time, I just enjoy pointing out how the whole Big Bang thing is taking quite the beating and how much clearer it is to see the fractal iterations the farther we are able to see, both on the Macro-Cosmic and Micro-Quantum levels, and then when you pause to think on how similar galaxies and atoms are, and then stop to look around you, and consider everything around you is composed of tiny, (to us) galaxies frozen in space and yet moving extremely fast within itself and is, Itself composed mostly of vacuum! And if atoms are galaxies, look at how huge the universe is from That perspective on top of our own gives you an idea of what 'Infinite' Really means.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2016
[Actually if all the energy is released in a single pulse it won't be spread through the volume but across the surface area.
That's 4Ď�r² which is 3767 km².


Which doesn't sound as much as the volume...:-)
I'm still thinking, so -
Wouldn't that energy dissipate as it travels? (Leaving little "droplets", as it were, of itself as it moves outward? Or maybe, since the surface area is increasing, THAT is the disipative mechanism...
Or how bout a combo of BOTH...
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2016
But yes, the idea of actual Infinite time and space, in All Directions has indeed been around for a very long time, I just enjoy pointing out how the whole Big Bang thing is taking quite the beating and how much clearer it is to see the fractal iterations the farther we are able to see, both on the Macro-Cosmic and Micro-Quantum levels, and then when you pause to think on how similar galaxies and atoms are, and then stop to look around you, and consider everything around you is composed of tiny, (to us) galaxies frozen in space and yet moving extremely fast within itself and is, Itself composed mostly of vacuum! And if atoms are galaxies, look at how huge the universe is from That perspective on top of our own gives you an idea of what 'Infinite' Really means.

Not sure if you're waiting for flashbacks, but you definitely participated in being "Experienced"...:-)
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2016
Wouldn't that energy dissipate as it travels? (Leaving little "droplets", as it were, of itself as it moves outward?
No, but

Or maybe, since the surface area is increasing, THAT is the disipative mechanism...
Yes, that's precisely it. It's why the intensity falls off as the square of distance: the surface area of the sphere increases as the square of the radius, but the energy remains constant (in a consistent frame).
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2016
Wouldn't that energy dissipate as it travels? (Leaving little "droplets", as it were, of itself as it moves outward?
No, but

Or maybe, since the surface area is increasing, THAT is the disipative mechanism...
Yes, that's precisely it. It's why the intensity falls off as the square of distance: the surface area of the sphere increases as the square of the radius, but the energy remains constant (in a consistent frame).

Thanks! I got it now...
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2016
( Sorry for my poor english ). Scientists think and speak only about stars, black holes, galaxies etc. They cannot have power to think about the empty space that contain all these. Empty space is supreme. Empty space is omnipresence. Empty space is omnipotence. Empty space omniscience. Empty space is the ALMIGHTY.

Empty space is just what everything else wants to fill....
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2016
And if atoms are galaxies, look at how huge the universe is from That perspective on top of our own gives you an idea of what 'Infinite' Really means.
I think infinite really means you're forgetting the uncertainty principle if you're talking about a single point in spacetime.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2016
The only real qualitative difference between the big bang and virtual particle pair production is the energy density. This process goes on continuously but at the big bang it occurred in such a small space that there was enough energy exchange to produce real particles.
nikola_milovic_378
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2016
@antialias,
Your attitude about what I wrote, shows that today's call scientists, like you, really contaminated 'new scientific knowledge "that they completely destroyed the basis for developing awareness. And awareness is the possibility of understanding the true causes of the phenomenon, which come to us from spiritual entities of the universe (SEU), and this is done through intuition, that these do not possess.
Now, it is no wonder that you do not understand anything, except what you learned by heart from others who also have no idea what is true and what is consistent with the laws of nature.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (17) Jul 14, 2016
Your attitude about what I wrote, shows that today's call scientists, like you, really contaminated 'new scientific knowledge

Anyone who deals in absolutes (like you) is a complete idiot and knows nothing about science. No one like that has ever made any contribution to science (or insight in general). They're a complete waste of bandwith.

Go and 'intuit' your stuff and see how far you get with it. Make a prediction based on your intuition that science hasn't made yet so we can test it. A QUANTITATIVE prediction. Fuzzy nonsense doesn't count (because fuzzy statements aren't useful for anything).

Put some numbers to your intuitive process. I dare you. I double dare you.

Otherwise just STFU and go away to some religious site where they're all for intuition.

Now, it is no wonder that you do not understand anything, except what you learned by heart

I learned, I applied, I even invented some of my own, and I can SHOW that it works. What have you got?
epoxy
Jul 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2016
@KaFaraqGatri, @rrranger,
I see from your interests when I am and where I come from, that you do more than inerested science. Special KaFaraqGatri possesses some innate traits Balkaca that necessarily do not like those who do not belong to his lineage.
It is true that we use: Serbian, Bosnian, Macedonian, Croatian, Slovenian, Russian, Macedonian, bugarski, French and English. Unfortunately, my KaF, I learned your language (maybe Albania), but I'd like to know him, the better to understand you, because you understand a lot of the events of the last war in the Balkans, much better than this what we discuss . You're not alone, do not be afraid !!
epoxy
Jul 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 14, 2016
Big bang is just another popular myth loudly proclaimed by Babylonian shamans. I doubt that there is а physical law not violated by this myth.The reason is simple as usual. There is no consequence bigger than its cause because of information barrier. In this physical world things are organized top down. The more complex and intelligent creators create less complex and intelligent creations. Тhe opposite is not possible because the informational barrier. Therefore an intelligent being can not create a physical system that contain more complex organized information than the information embedded in it.

nikola_milovic_378
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2016
All that is formed in the material and energy entity of the universe (MEEU), formed the substance of Ether, which fills the universe is infinite (infinity can not exist and something in the final). Executors and the author of these creations is the Creator (SEU-spiritual entity of the universe), which, by the Absolute consciousness of the universe (ACU), given the laws by which will be set up anything in MEEU. Understand one, all you who are the product of that Creator, that matter is formed from the ether, through the high vibrations of
epoxy
Jul 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2016
the same and formed strings in three spatial directions (no other dimensions, but three). The string sections of materialized in the form of quarks, which are connected gluons. How, if someone wants the details, I'll help him to understand this. All further processes have their own set of events, until a supernova that explodes and forms a cloud of gas that are formed celestial bodies to the size of clusters of galaxies.
nikola_milovic_378
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2016
When it reaches a critical mass, and with it the critical gravity, there is a collapse of matter, which returns to its initial shape in ether. This process takes place in a black hole, which is the place and the last borders between MEEU and SEU. This is the circle of infinite appearance and disappearance of certain parts of MEEU (This includes me as well as all other living beings, we are only two Entity as the universe and so we have all these qualities, if someone wants to monitor and improve).
Seeker2
4.5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2016
3) you may have heard about this thing calledvaccuum fluctuations (or more precisely: quantum fluctuations). It also very much deals with the 'empty space'
I'm thinking quantum refers to something that's quantized, like a pure audio tone. Real particles in their ground state are quantized because they contain a quantized amount of energy. Virtual particles can have any energy up to the energy required to make a quantized particle. Anything left over after raising the particle to its quantized energy level, if any, is radiated as a photon. So essentially virtual particles are photons out of phase with each other by 180 deg. Referring to them as quantum fluctuations seems like a misnomer - essentially they are sub-quantum fluctuations. So I wouldn't buy the term more precisely. Only a semantic problem though.
Seeker2
4.5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2016
Actually a quantum fluctuation would be more like raising a particle to a higher energy level, or resonating a musical instrument at a higher frequency. Nit picking people are always out there I know. <:)
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2016
@nm378
You should have your head examined.
It is your only chance to contribute to science.
Mimath224
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2016
nikola_milovic_378 seems to be on a pseudo sideways-religious-biocenttric ( the like, I have in the past, been unfortunate enough to encounter.
Mimath224
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2016
Phys1...@nm378 seems to be on a sideways-pseudo-religious-biocentric slant here...slobodno stvaranje volje-creation by free will given by divinities [I think]. Years ago I was unfortunate enough to encounter a group purporting '...by understanding ourselves we can create from the divinely free will given to us within the rules of spiritual guides...' Yeah, I didn't understand it either! I was almost thrown into 'hell's damnation', or at least an equivalent for suggesting a scientific approach is unbiased. To say that I made a quick exit is an understatement, Ha!
Mimath224
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2016
nikola_milovic_378 seems to be on a pseudo sideways-religious-biocenttric ( the like, I have in the past, been unfortunate enough to encounter.

Please ignore as I submitted in error.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2016
3) you may have heard about this thing calledvaccuum fluctuations (or more precisely: quantum fluctuations). It also very much deals with the 'empty space'
I'm thinking quantum refers to something that's quantized, like a pure audio tone.
That's not a very good analogy, nor, if you're referring to MIDI quantization, is it at all accurate. In MIDI, quantization refers to the timing and length of notes, not to their frequencies. The analogy is bad because tones are not quantized; they can have any frequency (as far as we know).

Small (and I mean subatomic) things simply behave in a manner that is fundamentally different from the way things in everyday life do. Your intuition is based on classical mechanics, and it will fail if you try to apply it to quantum mechanics.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2016
[contd]
Real particles in their ground state are quantized because they contain a quantized amount of energy.
Hmmm, no, that's not really accurate. They're quantized because many of their parameters cannot be represented continuously; they can only have certain values. For example, spin angular momentum is quantized; it can only be in half-units or units. There's no thirds, nor 0.768523s, or anything but multiples of one-half.

But their energy can be divided among many different parameters, some of which are quantized and some of which are not. You can represent both quantized and continuous parameters in Hilbert space. It's flexible that way.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2016
[contd]
Virtual particles can have any energy up to the energy required to make a quantized particle. Anything left over after raising the particle to its quantized energy level, if any, is radiated as a photon.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Virtual particles can have any energy, period; and there isn't any functional difference between them and other particles, except that they're virtual. Virtual particles become actual particles if they interact with something that gives them enough energy to become actualized. There isn't some energy limit beyond which they suddenly become actual.

And they don't radiate any energy beyond the necessary energy for their actualization; they retain momentum from that energy. So if a particle collision in an accelerator creates an electron-positron pair, the excess energy might appear as photons, or it might appear as the velocity of the electron and positron.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2016
[contd]
And which it appears as is up to chance, with various probabilities for various configurations. Calculating those probabilities is what quantum mechanics is for.

So essentially virtual particles are photons out of phase with each other by 180 deg.
I don't see where you get that. Yes, there are virtual photons. No, all virtual particles are not photons.

Referring to them as quantum fluctuations seems like a misnomer - essentially they are sub-quantum fluctuations. So I wouldn't buy the term more precisely. Only a semantic problem though.
I don't think you've supported your thesis here.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2016
Actually a quantum fluctuation would be more like raising a particle to a higher energy level, or resonating a musical instrument at a higher frequency.
No, not really. It's more like the vacuum expressing its fields, which even though they average to zero, have fluctuations in them that can be enough to create a particle pair briefly as long as the uncertainty is enough to permit it.

Nit picking people are always out there I know. <:)
Well, but see that's what science is all about. It's not science if you can't quantify (not quantize) it. You make measurements and then you figure out what equations can describe what you've seen, and then you try to figure out why those equations work, and make them predict something else you haven't looked at yet. Without quantifying it, there's no way to check if you're right.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 16, 2016
It's not science if you can't quantify (not quantize) it.


Right, like infinite gravity wells on the surface of a black hole that you have quantified ?

You make measurements and then you figure out what equations can describe what you've seen


Right again, you have Partial Differential equations for which you claim to have solutions which calculate infinite gravity at the surface of BHs for which you also claim to have pictures of?

and then you try to figure out why those equations work


But you refuse to share with us the solutions to those Partial DEs which you claim can prove the existence of infinite gravity at the surface of a BH.

Without quantifying it, there's no way to check if you're right


Then Shneibo, cough up those solutions for the Partial DEs which you claim proves infinite gravity exists at the surface of finite stellar masses labeled your pictures as BHs. Have you established a website link for those pictures yet?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 16, 2016
@Lenni, you were the one who claimed you could solve PDEs, and failed miserably when presented with some.

Now stop trying to bury it.

Reminder:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0

Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf
Benni
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 16, 2016
@Lenni, you were the one who claimed you could solve PDEs, and failed miserably when presented with some.
You're the one who stated you had PDE solutions by which YOU could prove infinite gravity, let's see them you windbag

Now stop trying to bury it.
Well, then why do you continue obfuscating posting those pics of BHs? I mean, you talk about burying stuff, you could be in for a Nobel for those pics, yet you won't publish those either.

You won't publish the Partial DEs that you claim would quantify infinite gravity on the surface of a finite mass, and you won't even share the pictures you claim to have seen by which you could prove such stellar bodies actually exist. I guess back to grade school for you, you retired old coots have plenty of time for it.

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 16, 2016
Solve 'em, @Lenni. Until then you're a liar.

Plug in a mass and get to work.
Hyperfuzzy
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 16, 2016
Are we still using mass as energy? In fact why are we still using mass? There are two fundamentals, the positive spherical field and the negative spherical field; all you need is a little common sense and the ability to move on.
Hyperfuzzy
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 16, 2016
Are we still using mass as energy? In fact why are we still using mass? There are two fundamentals, the positive spherical field and the negative spherical field; all you need is a little common sense and the ability to move on.

Other wise, you cannot know why you exist? Because that's the way space is shaped in this region, expect no variations. Prove me wrong against your theory, i.e. following logic.
Mimath224
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 16, 2016
@Lenni, you were the one who claimed you could solve PDEs, and failed miserably when presented with some.

Now stop trying to bury it.

Reminder:
-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r =....

@Da Schneib Now, now don't be unkind, He probably likes to start from ∇²Φ=4PiKp
Which isn't in the paper you linked.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (11) Jul 16, 2016
Why not understand conceptual space versus real space with these quirky holes that yield an electric field that un-stumbly follows Maxwell, nothing else; how could you measure anything else? Maybe look a little deeper, with a focus, don't even to bother to look at anything else! This Magic! What are they? Why are they? Simple phenomenon. Control these, know these, you know everything. I can create my own world, given a big enough computer. Why have we not a computer, where I say calculate best efficiencies of our planet, satisfying these requirements. Why would that require money? Would that not define real value.
Hyperfuzzy
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 16, 2016
How do we define any process to here, if we don't know what is here? juz say'n
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2016
Actually a quantum fluctuation would be more like raising a particle to a higher energy level, or resonating a musical instrument at a higher frequency.
No, not really. It's more like the vacuum expressing its fields, which even though they average to zero, have fluctuations in them that can be enough to create a particle pair briefly as long as the uncertainty is enough to permit it.
I don't think real particle pairs are created briefly. At least I hope not. The ground state requires an energy borrowed from the negative energy particle to the positive energy particle of e=mc^2. I'd say that's a quantized amount of energy. When you get annihilation with energy released at these energies it's like a nuclear bomb.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2016
Actually a quantum fluctuation would be more like raising a particle to a higher energy level, or resonating a musical instrument at a higher frequency.
No, not really. It's more like the vacuum expressing its fields,...
The fields in a vacuum are expressed as continuous amounts of borrowed energies normally less than that required for real particle production. To get sufficient energy to produce real particles you need something like a lightning bolt. The vacuum does express its fields through sub-quantum fluctuations like virtual pair production. The e/m field gets its strength by reorienting virtual particles in a non-random distribution so that the virtual charge distributions don't average out to be zero. That is, more virtual pairs are produced in the north-south direction, for example, than the east-west direction, leading to a net e/m field in this direction. These are all sub-quantum fluctuations. No real particle production required.
Seeker2
4 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2016
(contd)
The vacuum really did express its fields in the big bang. All sub-quantum fluctuations restrained to one Planck volume makes lots of quantum variations in the form of real particles. If spacetime ever collapses it will eventually happen again. But note don't buy the singularity theory. There is no such thing because of the uncertainty principle.
epoxy
Jul 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2016
@Benni
Please state what you believe is a PDE. For example, do you consider the equation 1+1=2 to be a PDE? That would explain a lot, although far from all.
Phys1
4 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2016
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304771239_Schwarzschild_1916_seminal_paper_revisited_A_virtual_singularity The variable R introduced by the author in this paper was not the radial position but an auxiliary variable.

I have entertained this opinion for a while but changed my mind.
So, can you spot an error in the derivation on
https://en.wikipe...solution ?
I could not.
epoxy
Jul 18, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2016
silly wabbit, conceptual space is not actual space. Actual space has only two entities, two diametrical spherical fields. That's it, in few combinations,

By the way, do your homework, try a tensor space for epsilon and mu, also make sense of the expansion vs this tensor space as a function over the volume. Maybe we can see better. Oh, forget Dr. E., he didn't get my memo, he did not define the time it takes for the wavelet to pass, i.e. don't change space and time, that's silly. juz say'n
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2016
...the space-time curvature gets maximal at the center of black hole, which is apparently wrong and it also contradicts the common experience: at the case of massive bodies their gravity gets maximal at their surface, not center.
I don't think space-time curvature occurs for non-relativistic body motions. Gravity is maximal at the surface because the gradient of vacuum pressure outside the body and inside is greatest there. And I think you have to go inside the event horizon to the physical edge of matter in the black hole to find it's maximum gravity.
Hyperfuzzy
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2016
...the space-time curvature gets maximal at the center of black hole, which is apparently wrong and it also contradicts the common experience: at the case of massive bodies their gravity gets maximal at their surface, not center.
I don't think space-time curvature occurs for non-relativistic body motions. Gravity is maximal at the surface because the gradient of vacuum pressure outside the body and inside is greatest there. And I think you have to go inside the event horizon to the physical edge of matter in the black hole to find it's maximum gravity.

Wavelet observed is the emitted wavelet, unchanged, you simply measure time of passage; therefore, not GR
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2016
[cont]
The curved or warped spacetime idea probably came from gravitational lensing. Basically here the vacuum energy density is greater around large bodies because matter displaces the vacuum. The lensing occurs as light moves into a medium of higher refractive index. Spacetime can be curved or warped when high speed particles disturb the normally random orientation of virtual particle pairs. The charge of virtual electrons and positrons may be re-oriented on the average to produce what appears as an e/m field as in sunspot flares and black hole jets.
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2016
@Phys1: It's well known, that the Schwarzchild horizon the solution becomes singular and coordinate system http://www.madore...ere.png. This effectively splits the solution of Einstein field equations into two areas: bellow and above event horizon and the space-time curvature gets maximal at the event horizon. Nevertheless the derivation at Wikipedia still uses only one space coordinate r - why? According to this solution the space-time curvature gets maximal at the center of black hole, which is apparently wrong and it also contradicts the common experience: at the case of massive bodies their gravity gets maximal at their surface, not center.

You have not pointed out an error in the derivation, just discontent with its result.
Note 1: 3 spherical coordinates are used, not just r.
Note 2: the Schwarzschild metric holds outside a spherical mass.
The wikipedia article does not discuss the solution inside a mass distribution.
Hyperfuzzy
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2016
[cont]
The curved or warped spacetime idea probably came from gravitational lensing. Basically here the vacuum energy density is greater around large bodies because matter displaces the vacuum. The lensing occurs as light moves into a medium of higher refractive index. Spacetime can be curved or warped when high speed particles disturb the normally random orientation of virtual particle pairs. The charge of virtual electrons and positrons may be re-oriented on the average to produce what appears as an e/m field as in sunspot flares and black hole jets.

recalibrate your epsilon mu tensors
Hyperfuzzy
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2016
we are looking at $hit wrong, light is a function of the source, the source's motion, the emitter, the emitters motion, the volume of space time at play, simply the effective mu epsilon as a function of the 4D tensor space, think 3D will do, since each point in time at any point is a function of history, and the entities available in the volume, and the body of the whole. There are only two emitters supplied by our space-time, everywhere. When was this validated as nonsense? 'Cause this $hit makes absolutely no sense. There is the effect of motion of all bodies as per Maxwell and the observed evidence, i.e. light as a function of the media, so the proof of epsilon mu over light years, is yet TBD. So?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2016
So how do we get from accelerated expansion to contraction? Let me guess. As the universe cools the virtual particle generators come into sympathetic resonance. Their space requirements shrink as more and more particle pairs align themselves into a tighter configuration and begin to merge, leading to higher and higher virtual particle pair energies. In the meantime antimatter has been arranging itself into a shell configutation around the one giant black hole containing all matter by the force of gravity. See http://phys.org/n...wletter. When the shell collapses onto the black hole the big bang process restarts. This thesis ignores the fact that as virtual particle pairs increase in energy they may be forming more real particles, complicating the process as these particles enlarge the black hole and surrounding antimatter shell.
Hyperfuzzy
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2016
So how do we get from accelerated expansion to contraction?

When something does not make sense, you probably have an error either in theory or measurement. Can't use stupid theory to verify stupid theory. If stupid theory is giving all the wrong answers, I would not spend my time with adding unknown $hit to a stupid theory. Juz say'n

By the way c is a constant, the speed of the wavelet is not a constant!
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2016
By the way c is a constant,...
The speed of light depends on gravity. So does the frequency of atomic clocks. Amazing stuff, eh?
Hyperfuzzy
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2016
By the way c is a constant,...
The speed of light depends on gravity. So does the frequency of atomic clocks. Amazing stuff, eh?

Dude, you are using theory to justify theory. c is a scalar constant. Light motion is defined by a poynting vector, i.e. poorly defined. go figure

Use the direction and speed of the wavelet. Try this, the wavelet does not change, so how fast does it pass, front to back, lambda emitted divided by time to pass, i.e. period. So first the correct measure then dependencies, mu epsilon.
Hyperfuzzy
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2016
By the way c is a constant,...
The speed of light depends on gravity. So does the frequency of atomic clocks. Amazing stuff, eh?

Dude, you are using theory to justify theory. c is a scalar constant. Light motion is defined by a poynting vector, i.e. poorly defined. go figure

Use the direction and speed of the wavelet. Try this, the wavelet does not change, so how fast does it pass, front to back, lambda emitted divided by time to pass, i.e. period. So first the correct measure then dependencies, mu epsilon.

Note: The field, everywhere has the velocity vector of the emitter added vectorially. You can't just make $hit up!
Hyperfuzzy
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2016
Let's add logic, if nothing is all that is or was, then we don't exist! Space is composed two diametrical spherical fields, a lot of them, that have always existed and will always exist. I exist therefore ... Big Bounce, who cares? What is space? Think!

Think somebody did a song, "... something from nothing leaves nothing ..."
DonCarloFantasia
Aug 09, 2016
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.