No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning »

Have a comment?

Sign In or Create an Account

• 

  Tone Tone (71) October 16, 2015

  Can someone explain this in layman’s terms please?

  Can someone explain this in layman's terms please?

  1

  @Tone Tone Reply
  • 

    John (1) October 20, 2015

    That the prevailing theory on the origins of the universe is in doubt. That all theories and scientific conclusions should always be second guessed and constantly scrutinized vs. being taught as fact. That everything you were taught in school could be wrong. I’m sorry to say it but many scientists are egocentric and that’s part of being human. What starts as honorable scientific curiosity becomes a career in science, a lifetime of work, an interest in being accepted by industry peers, and then a narcissistic defense of beliefs. Many scientists believe theories because their colleagues told them it was fact. Question everything! And then question yourself. Perhaps the Big Bang theory will hold up after scrutiny of this professor’s conclusions, or perhaps you’ll realize that your science teachers were wrong when they failed a kid for not believing in the Big Bang. I commend the UNC professor for publishing controversial results that she will ultimately be ostracized for, and I look forward to the debate! It’s very interesting stuff.

    That the prevailing theory on the origins of the universe is in doubt. That all theories and scientific conclusions should always be second guessed and constantly scrutinized vs. being taught as fact. That everything you were taught in school could be wrong. I'm sorry to say it but many scientists are egocentric and that's part of being human. What starts as honorable scientific curiosity becomes a career in science, a lifetime of work, an interest in being accepted by industry peers, and then a narcissistic defense of beliefs. Many scientists believe theories because their colleagues told them it was fact. Question everything! And then question yourself. Perhaps the Big Bang theory will hold up after scrutiny of this professor's conclusions, or perhaps you'll realize that your science teachers were wrong when they failed a kid for not believing in the Big Bang. I commend the UNC professor for publishing controversial results that she will ultimately be ostracized for, and I look forward to the debate! It's very interesting stuff.

    2

    @John Reply
    • 

      Tone Tone (71) October 23, 2015

      Thank you for the insightful truth about science. As for the actual theory or potential theory here? Is there a way to explain it simply?

      Thank you for the insightful truth about science. As for the actual theory or potential theory here? Is there a way to explain it simply?

      1

      @Tone Tone Reply
      • 

        areNdee (0) December 11, 2015

        I took the liberty of reading the abstract of the paper in question (I believe it is this one: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314009381) some months ago. For the record I’m no physicist or mathematical genius>
        However I believe the jist of it is that they reconciled/corrected some cosmological laws by applying quantum mechanical laws to them. “It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE).”.
        Again I’m no mathematician or anything, though that’s what I got from it.

        I took the liberty of reading the abstract of the paper in question (I believe it is this one: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314009381) some months ago. For the record I'm no physicist or mathematical genius> However I believe the jist of it is that they reconciled/corrected some cosmological laws by applying quantum mechanical laws to them. "It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE).". Again I'm no mathematician or anything, though that's what I got from it.

        1

        @areNdee Reply
• 

  Kris (328) November 1, 2015

  Balance is the universal fulcrum that all perceived motion extends from and back to. In the 0 of balance is rest. Everything is un-happening as it is happening. Time is a mental construct that will end where it began, in the mind of man along with mans “infinity”. Einstein paved way to understand how space and time go hand in hand. When you innerstand the illusion of time, you’ll begin to innerstand it’s partner illusion of “space”. When scientists label something as “dark”, they’re only labeling they’re own understanding of something. There is no darkness in all the cosmos when you see the light of Truth that all the cosmos IS.

  Balance is the universal fulcrum that all perceived motion extends from and back to. In the 0 of balance is rest. Everything is un-happening as it is happening. Time is a mental construct that will end where it began, in the mind of man along with mans "infinity". Einstein paved way to understand how space and time go hand in hand. When you innerstand the illusion of time, you'll begin to innerstand it's partner illusion of "space". When scientists label something as "dark", they're only labeling they're own understanding of something. There is no darkness in all the cosmos when you see the light of Truth that all the cosmos IS.

  1

  @Kris Reply
  • 

    Tone Tone (71) December 28, 2015

    Holy fuck. I don’t know if this is hogwash or the most insightful thing ever. You used the word fulcrum so I’ll lean towards the latter.

    Holy fuck. I don't know if this is hogwash or the most insightful thing ever. You used the word fulcrum so I'll lean towards the latter.

    1

    @Tone Tone Reply
• 

  Yitzhak (18) January 19, 2016

  MIT Physicists uses this diagram to understand belief in G-d
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA

  MIT Physicists uses this diagram to understand belief in G-d https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQVm8RokoBA

  1

  @Yitzhak Reply