Scientists claim to have discovered what existed BEFORE the beginning of the universe

In their cosmology model, the cyclic nature of the universe occurs as a result of incorporating quantum effects into a cosmological model of the universe.

Prof Faizal explained that even though there are many different mind-bending approaches to quantum gravity, like string theory and loop quantum gravity, what most of these different approaches have in common is that there is a minimum length below which space does not exist.

Many of these approaches also predict that there is also a maximum energy and no object in the universe can have an energy beyond that maximum energy.

They research team incorporated the effect of having a minimum length and an maximum energy into a cosmological model, and then they ended up with a cyclic universe.


Views: 297

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Scientific American's November cover story is about entangled black holes, which along with entangled photons supposedly could unify quantum theory at both a micro and a macro level. Entanglement may be explainable via wormholes, meaning (if I understand correctly) that entangled photon pairs and entngled black hole pairs can remain closely connected to each other via another dimension, no matter how far apart they are in our familiar dimensions.

This sounded crazy to me, but I realized there must be some crazy explanation for entanglement. It also occured to me that even while the universe is expanding, things may remain "right next to each other", if not two halves of a single object... with implications of instant or triggerable collapse somehow possible.

The SciAm story's behind a paywall, but I found an article that explains this idea that's only a few yearrs old, known as "ER=EPR", where the E, R, and P represent physicists who teamed up to write specific EP and EPR papers. E was Einstein. Here's the article:

Interesting.  It makes some sense, in that we said there was a maximum speed, and that as we approach that maximum, mass increases.

Mass and energy are interchangeable units, so, if there is a maximum speed, a maximum mass might make sense...or at least maximum density.


I posit that there is a multiverse, one universe of which is our own. This is the only one that we can use or begin to understand.   It is only idea that makes sense is that there are an infinite number of universes, each one entropising (or engaging in entropy) and expanding until the next cycle begins.

Too much Dr. Who or sci-fi? 

No, that's what makes that we have an infinite amount of time, and space, and therefore spacetime.

So, just as we are in our own solar system, in our own galaxy and in our own known universe, it is probable that our universe is no more special than our galaxy or solar system.

The other universes are of course incredibly far away from us, and, given the speed of light, it is unlikely that we will live long enough to receive the light from their stars...given that we are just now receiving the light from stars in our OWN universe, etc.

IE: Just as early astronomers/astrologists conceitedly assumed we were the center of the universe, and the sun went around the earth, etc...and then that our solar system was the only solar system...and then our galaxy was the only galaxy, and so forth, it is likely that it would be equally conceited to assume we are in the only universe.


And yet, it's not a vicious assumption to assume we are the only universe because, for the reasons you gave, it won't be contradicted and lead to mistakes. Evidence that's permanently unavailable is irrelevant. For all practical purposes, we ARE the only universe.

So, your position is that we are the only universe, because, you feel that there will never be evidence to prove otherwise?

The same position about ours being the only planet, etc?


Essentially, as you assume you can't be proven wrong on a position in your life time, you take the position based upon its defense not being available in time to refute it, rather than on its own merits?

Or, are you merely pointing out the potential pascal's wagerness of someone, not you per se, taking that position?


So, your position is that we are the only universe, because, you feel that there will never be evidence to prove otherwise?

To quote Hillary Clinton, "At this point, what difference does it make?"

I'm not taking a firm position. But what point would there be (and what basis would there be) for assuming that there are other universes? Simply because there MIGHT be other ones? 

I believe there may be no other planets with intelligent life, but at least in that case there might be a way to prove me wrong. Not so with other universes, if I go by your description. Of course, maybe YOU are wrong.

That's the opposite of how theoretical science works unseen. If no one had bothered to posit an incredible theory, work out the orbits of the planets then we'd never have launched into space and put up global satellites that you use on a daily basis, benefit from the mathematical and technological fruits that came by mathematical analysis of the orbiting planets, retrieve gorgeous images of the planets and the universe which have become essential icons of 21st century culture and we wouldn't be on track to finding an alternative place to live before climate catastrophe turns Earth into a broiling oven. You cannot know the benefits that come with solving problems that seem abstract and uninteresting for ones daily life. So the status quo is enough and we can wave our hand at anything more.

Better Galileo and Ptolomy wrote poetry or studied pure math instead. Might as well just assume the planets and sun go around the Earth know...we will never collect enough data on the topic or leave Earths gravity or reach beyond the heavens. And even if we do...what difference does it make? So what's the point in postulating incredible theories with minimal evidence and no hope of future revelation?

There is but one universe, no free will and consciousness let's us know our emotions. More complex than that is a wasteful fools could they not be what I just said they were and what difference does it make?

I'm not talking as a scientist. I'm a layman. I'm talking for myself.

Haha, listen to those guys!

So serious TA members like to talk about what should or shouldn't be believed in or posited. It's a side-effect of having to deal every day with religious fiction.

It's ok to speculate, and posit, and keep our mind open. Science works that way, correcting itself in the long run.

I don't happen to enjoy Dr. Who or much other science fantasy, but it seems that everyone who does is rather interesting and fully likable. (I did enjoy Red Dwarf, however.)

True Dat.

Some people are naturally curious, and, others are not...and, most of us, are naturally curious about some things, and, not others, etc.

Its just human nature.

So, there are people who love exploration for its own sake, to discover what's out there and how things work...and, those who ONLY want to know answers to immediate questions.

So, some of us, say, hmmm, if I chip off some of this rock, I get a sharp edge, I wonder what I could use something sharp for?  Maybe it will help me kill a nice juicy mastodon, so I don't need to catch 200 stupid lean rabbits...?

Others say, a rock?...they are useless, give me another rabbit...I'm still hungry!

So, there are people who love exploration for its own sake, to discover what's out there and how things work...

This pretty much defines philosophy from day one. This very field in its broadest sense is one giant answer to "what's the point".


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service