http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu ... tml#ajTabsThe universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
I'm not going to hold my breath.Doum wrote:http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantu ... tml#ajTabsThe universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093v3
Sean Carroll wrote:Give zero credence to a story about a speculative physics paper that only quotes the authors. It's a press release.
The publisher, Physics Letters B is part of The Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics .Physics Letters B
4 February 2015, Vol.741:276–279, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.057
Cosmology from quantum potential
Ahmed Farag Ali Saurya Das
Abstract
It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe.
MNature
Open-access deal for particle physics. Consortium brokers agreement with 12 journals.
The entire field of particle physics is set to switch to open-access publishing, a milestone in the push to make research results freely available to readers.
Particle physics is already a paragon of openness, with most papers posted on the preprint server arXiv. But peer-reviewed versions are still published in subscription journals, and publishers and research consortia at facilities such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have previously had to strike piecemeal deals to free up a few hundred articles.
After six years of negotiation, the Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3) is now close to ensuring that nearly all particle-physics articles — about 7,000 publications last year — are made immediately free on journal websites. Upfront payments from libraries will fund the access.
...The consortium will pay the contracts from an annual budget of €10 million, which is funded not by authors or research grants, but by pledges from more than a thousand libraries, funding agencies and research consortia across the world. In effect, existing journal subscription fees are being repurposed to provide the open-access funds.
I wouldn't say that, necessary. More like quite speculative, and which would require an awful lot of evidence before many people would invest a lot of time looking closer.FloridaMike wrote:So the general consensus is that the claims of this paper are , Inflated?
Well put, geck.geckzilla wrote:Especially with the notion that Big Bang could just poof and go away soon. There are a lot of BB skeptics out there in the world of lay people. They already don't realize how large the body of evidence pointing to the BB is. They have this idea that cosmologists are clueless and just made the whole thing up to sound smart. Due to the nature of science it is possible that it may one day be replaced with something else but it won't go out easily.
It is not limited to religious people. It's just one of those things that is hard to make sense of. Or perhaps you might say it is easy to be skeptical of. It is an extraordinary claim. But it also has extraordinary evidence backing it.Ann wrote:I think that the Big Bang is unpopular among many people, in many cases because they want to believe in Genesis rather than in any sort of science that contradicts their belief.
You're right about the unpopularity of BB cosmology among some religious people, but by no means all. Many, including myself, like the Big Bang, or at least are not opposed to it, because it fits with the biblical notion that the universe had a beginning. As to the theory being discussed in this thread, I would be opposed to it on both scientific and religious grounds. The BB as a concept is a natural understanding that follows from the discovery of universal expansion. Back-track the expansion far enough back and there would have to be a starting point. The Big Bang looks to be far more logical than ideas that the universe had no beginning.Ann wrote:I think that the Big Bang is unpopular among many people, in many cases because they want to believe in Genesis rather than in any sort of science that contradicts their belief.
Yes, just like you and Geck have said, both religious and nonreligious people oppose the Big Bang, just like other religious and nonreligious people support it.BDanielMayfield wrote:You're right about the unpopularity of BB cosmology among some religious people, but by no means all. Many, including myself, like the Big Bang, or at least are not opposed to it, because it fits with the biblical notion that the universe had a beginning. As to the theory being discussed in this thread, I would be opposed to it on both scientific and religious grounds. The BB as a concept is a natural understanding that follows from the discovery of universal expansion. Back-track the expansion far enough back and there would have to be a starting point. The Big Bang looks to be far more logical than ideas that the universe had no beginning.Ann wrote:I think that the Big Bang is unpopular among many people, in many cases because they want to believe in Genesis rather than in any sort of science that contradicts their belief.
Bruce
For the record, points 1 to 4 can and have been studied theoretically in the frame work of general relativity. As with warp drives, the answer is that yes, traversable wormholes (meaning a human can pass through it unharmed) are allowed. However, these wormhole solutions require exotic matter, one with a negative energy density, and currently no such substance is known (a possible source may be the Casimir effect).Ann wrote:Consider the following hypotheses and ask yourself which of them are likely to receive the most attention (let's assume that all of them were put forth by scientists):
1) Wormholes can exist/ Wormholes can't exist.
2) It is possible to travel through a wormhole/ It isn't possible to travel through a wormhole, because the wormhole would collapse if you entered it.
3) It would be possible to travel through a wormhole and emerge alive at a totally different location in the universe/ It would be possible to travel through a wormhole in the sense that it wouldn't collapse, but you would probably still be killed by the experience.
4) If you didn't like the new location where you arrived after journeying through the wormhole, you could dive back into the wormhole and come back to where you started from/ It might be possible to survive the journey through a wormhole and arrive at a totally different location in the universe, but you could never go back again.
[...]
[F]or all I know it might be possible to travel through a wormhole, although I'm highly skeptical. But my point is that many people may get the impression that these popular ideas have been proven by a lot of evidence when they certainly have not.
) the Big Bang seem the most plausible theory. So seeing that new theory was a shock and surprise. But as Chris said, it need to have more evidence. As Markus pointed out, papers positing alternate cosmological theories come out all the time. They come, they go. They never stick, decade after decade. Does that mean that one won't ultimately turn out to become the dominant theory? No. But given the strengths of the current theories with some kind of Big Bang event at their core, the likelihood is small.Doum wrote:To me it's not a question of support or oppose the Big Bang theory. It's the possibility of another theory. When i saw that article i was surprise. Because to me for what i know or understand (Or think i understand :ssmile: ) the Big Bang seem the most plausible theory. So seeing that new theory was a shock and surprise. But as Chris said, it need to have more evidence.
Time will tell if its a good one or not. I have no opinion on it for now but im still curious about it.
If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang.[attachment=0]universe-timeline[1].jpg[/attachment]
In the new formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the universe may have no beginning at all.
"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.
The new concept could also explain what dark matter — the mysterious, invisible substance that makes up most of the universe — is actually made of, Das added. ...
I thought it was familiar, but I couldn't find it.To clarify, the authors don't say that the universe isn't expanding and that it didn't have a phase were you could have put the entire universe in a nutshell. They claim in their theory that, roughly, the "point were the size of the universe was zero is infinitely far away in the past". This is different from the big bang solution of general relativity, where this point is 13.8 billion years in the past. Still, even in their theory, the age of galaxies and stars would not differ much from this number. So, no problem with iron etc. Phrased differently, the age of the universe may be infinite in their theory, but the age of stars is not affected.kellogg wrote:A problem I see with this theory is that the universe is demonstrably aging.
We can see the progression of the formation of elements in the stars of distant galaxies in the concentration of iron atoms.
If the universe is infinitely old, it seems to me there should be a lot more iron than there is.
Scott Kellogg
