This could be incredibly big. Or it could be a dud upon more rigorous testing, but it’s definitely supremely interesting.
In short, the authors analysis suggests that there was no big bang…or dark matter or dark energy. And the universe turns out to be an infinite age.
I particularly like that multiple problems may be solved–at least in large part–simultaneously. I suppose this also increases the likelihood of a serious flaw being found, but damn if it isn’t elegant!
Thoughts?
An infinite universe? That opens up one big can of worms. How do they account for the background radiation?
Probably find an error in the paper in a few as has often been the case recently.
Megatron does not approve.
Less than a year ago a paper was being linked around the science world(and made its way into more maintstream internet areas) that mathematically proved the Big Bang could have come from quantum fluctuation. Now that claim isn’t that they proved the Big Bang happened and happened that way, but it still goes to show that the scientific community is not at all in some unified agreement over this still.
I will say that it is interesting that two major papers have been written about it now in that time span, perhaps we really are getting closer to a new understanding(that will bring with it amazing new questions, certainly).
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Megatron does not approve.[/quote]
Best response. Hah!
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
This could be incredibly big. Or it could be a dud upon more rigorous testing, but it’s definitely supremely interesting.
In short, the authors analysis suggests that there was no big bang…or dark matter or dark energy. And the universe turns out to be an infinite age.
I particularly like that multiple problems may be solved–at least in large part–simultaneously. I suppose this also increases the likelihood of a serious flaw being found, but damn if it isn’t elegant!
Thoughts?[/quote]
Inflationary theory has been around for quite some time actually. And the idea of the ‘eternal’ universe theory that follows is a little misleading. It’s just saying there is no defined point of beginning, that time itself came with the universe, hence there is no ‘before’ and hence is temporally eternal, because there was no time without the universe. It’s also the same model used for the infinite multiverse theory which has it’s own set of problems.
Inflation theory, basically says there is ‘no point beyond time’ just like if you are standing at the north pole, there is no north.
Just like a lot of current theories, it one that solves some problems and createsm others. Further there is no evidence for it.
Why would you be interested in that if you don’t understand more basic physics? Biochemistry is not.
“For it is well known to all clear and correct thinkers who do not wish to deceive themselves, that this question, namely, whether the Universe has been created or is eternal, cannot be answered with mathematical certainty; here human intellect must pause. We shall have occasion to speak more fully on this subject, but for the present it may suffice to state that the philosophers have for the last three thousand years been continually divided on that question, as far as we can learn from their works and the records of their opinions.”
-Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, Part I, LXXI. (circa 1190 AD)
plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose