• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

"These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. "

They don't explain how this fits with basic physics concerning the age of stars not to mention the most basic related theories that are well proven and demonstrated.

It's one thing to come up with some math to eliminate singularities; it's another to come up with a method to prove the fundamentals, as was done with Einstein's eclipse experiment.
 
Last edited:
"In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe."

How do they explain the red shift of the galaxies and the fact that they are all accelerating away from each other?

If the universe is a finite size, what will "stop" the galaxies to keep them within that finite size?
 
progressquest said:
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

I haven't seen anything on this yet. Can someone explain how "sing the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation" eliminates the big bang? Can you also use small words?

Thank you.
Click to expand...


This representation of quantum+GR theory, where ‘the universe doesn’t have a beginning, corresponds to a change in variable. I conjecture that this change in variable corresponds to a change in time units from a linear system to a logarithmic system. What he appears to be saying is that the linear units of time that we use do not correspond to a simple theory. The simplest expressions for his theory of quantum mechanics plus relativity are expressed in terms of the logarithm of what most scientists call time.


What Hawking is doing appears to me analogous to the change in units often used by physicists and acoustical engineers.Physicists (like me) can characterize the strength of sound in terms of the intensity which is in units of energy divided by area (e.g., J/m^2). However, acoustical engineers find it convenient to characterize the strength of a sound using a loudness which is logarithmic scale of intensity (e.g., decibels). The loudness of a sound is twenty times the base 10 logarithm of the ratio between a given sounds intensity and a standard.

The intensity of a sound has a floor in that energy can’t be negative. The minus intensity a sound can make is 0.0 J/m^2. So the ‘beginning’ of intensity is 0.0 J/m^2. However, the lower bound on loudness that can be measured is minus infinity decibels. No matter how negative the number of decibels is, there is always some positive value of intensity that it corresponds to. So there is no ‘beginning’ to loudness.

The important metaphor is that for acoustical engineers, the logarithmic units are much more convenient then linear units. Loudness is more ‘fundamental’ to some engineers than ‘intensity.’ I can speculate as to why cosmologists find the logarithm of time more ‘fundamental’ than time itself.

What we call time is a linear count of the complete oscillations of a harmonic oscillator. The harmonic oscillator can vary. Pendulums, springs, quartz crystals, and cesium atoms have all be used, historically speaking. However, the occurrence of the big bang occurred a finite number of oscillations from the present no matter what type of oscillation is used. In terms of the linear units of time (seconds, minutes, days, years), the universe has a beginning.

What Hawkings would call time is the logarithm of the linear count of the complete oscillations of a harmonic oscillator. He would determine the logarithm of the oscillations of any harmonic oscillator as the ‘quantum time unit’. He never named that unit, but perhaps we can call this unit the ‘decibang’ !-) In terms of the logarithmic scale, the universe has no beginning.


The other ‘advantage’ to logarithmic time is that it is consistent with thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics have a some subtle similarities. In both cases, time is acted on by an exponential operator. So time can often pop out as the logarithm of a quantity. I know that Hawking likes to combine thermodynamics with everything else. So maybe he is using logarithmic time to make the use of thermodynamics easier.

“Logaritmic time’ appears more fundamental than ‘linear time’ when it comes to thermodynamics. Further, exponential decay in linear time becomes linear decay in logarithmic time. Since the direction of time in physics pops out of thermodynamics, maybe the most fundamental way to imagine time is in logarithmic units.

So my guess is that 'quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation' is a fancy type of 'partition function'. The 'partition function' in thermodynamics connects time to an exponential function. By using logarithmic units of time, he simplifies the Raychaudhuri equation whatever it is. Basically, Hawking analyzing the history of the universe in terms of heat flow.

I get that in some of his other work, too. Hawking loves to use the equations for heat flow every chance he gets. Even black holes have a temperature, according to him!

Cautionary note: Cosmology is not my field. However, I read about the universe ‘not having a beginning’ in Stephen Hawkings book, ‘A Brief History of Time’. I read something like it in one of Freeman Dysons books, which I forgot. I also have taken graduate courses in quantum physics, thermodynamics and relativity. I am working on a more mundane problem in thermodynamics right now. So I may have thermodynamics on the brain !-)

What I just said can be considered an ‘educated guess’ as to what Hawking was thinking. So please tell him not to run over my foot with his wheelchair !
 
Looks to me like all they eliminate is the singularity.



from the OP link

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.
Click to expand...



From Gord in Toronto link


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raychaudhuri_equation

Mathematical statement[edit]
Given a timelike unit vector field (which can be interpreted as a family or congruence of nonintersecting world lines, not necessarily geodesics),
Click to expand...



So expansion from a really small volume and even rapid and continuing or increasing expansion (as data indicates) would still be possible. Just not the singularity (big bang or big crunch). Kind of like a smaller Bang.


Though the evidence for expansion doesn't quite jive with this part (from the OP article).

These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age.
Click to expand...

They may be thinking of more of a small bounce kind of model where the universe cycles between expansion and contraction but never gets below some minimum volume (thus avoiding a singularity). However, that's just my entirely amateurish speculation.
 
Expanding space is naked empaire!

nobody cant explain what kind of system is expanding space and how and why is expanding!

it is very easy explain what kind of system is expanding nucleus of atoms, which expanding outside to eternal space which already exist, and recycling expanding movement which have a nature of expanding light!

EternalLove
 
it's been a long time since I read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Space and Time" but I seem to remember that he pointed out that GR applies to the large and not the small and was thus not able to deal with singularities. Therefore, GR predicts its own downfall.

Nevertheless, GR is used to calculate the origins of the "Big Bang" which means that any conclusions drawn from it are suspect.
 
Pixie of key said:
Expanding space is naked empaire!

nobody cant explain what kind of system is expanding space and how and why is expanding!

it is very easy explain what kind of system is expanding nucleus of atoms, which expanding outside to eternal space which already exist, and recycling expanding movement which have a nature of expanding light!

EternalLove
Click to expand...

Not really!!!
 
if this proves correct a lot of creationists are going to be seriously bummed...
 
rjh01 said:
Was Hoyle right after all?
Click to expand...


No. Hoyle's Steady State theory required the continuous creation of matter at the rate of one hydrogen atom per cubic metre per 1010 years as the Universe expands. This would have implications such as radically violating laws of physics such as conservation of mass and energy.

Of course, Steady State also cannot account for the CMB
 
smartcooky said:
"In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe."

How do they explain the red shift of the galaxies and the fact that they are all accelerating away from each other?

If the universe is a finite size, what will "stop" the galaxies to keep them within that finite size?
Click to expand...

I took where they said that the "terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant" to mean that the terms predict the observed red shifts.
 
Pixie of key said:
Expanding space is naked empaire!

nobody cant explain what kind of system is expanding space and how and why is expanding!

it is very easy explain what kind of system is expanding nucleus of atoms, which expanding outside to eternal space which already exist, and recycling expanding movement which have a nature of expanding light!

EternalLove
Click to expand...

Word wang!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom