A possible new model (not actually new) reframes the universe game both in terms of age and size and singularities and gravity and passionate explosions. A possible game changer if the theory can expand and withstand scrutiny and testing (and predictive force). It is still in its infancy but if true it would mean that the only big bangs in the universe occur by animals on the planet Earth. It also means once we get warp drive...there will be a limit to where you can go and nowhere to hide from your space-nemeses.

(Phys.org) —The 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.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

Full Article

Views: 206

Comment by TJ on February 18, 2016 at 2:14pm

Combine that with this:


And the entire universe is pretty much open for grabs.


Comment by TJ on February 18, 2016 at 3:04pm

You know this is actually disguised woo, right?


Comment by TJ on February 18, 2016 at 8:20pm

Essentially, math not explaining something doesn't mean its invalid.

For example, we are pretty confident that force equals mass times acceleration, but, it can't explain if going backwards makes something lighter.

It doesn't mean its wrong.

IE: The "Laws of Physics" don't break down at singularity and before, just as "The Laws of Physics" didn't breakdown before we learned about relativity....we just don't KNOW what laws APPLY yet...and we may never know.

IE: The "Laws" are not what we say, they exist whether we have discovered them or not.


Relativity, Newtonian Physics, and so forth, do NOT explain everything...they explain some things that they are relevant to.

Newton was correct about what he was addressing...Einstein added to that, and others added to Einstein, and so forth.

Things like Red Shifts, and Blue Shifts, the chemical make-up of the known universe, the elements that exist in "younger vs older" systems, background radiation, etc, all indicate the age of the known universe.

These OBSERVATIONS cannot be explained if the universe is static.

Comment by TJ on February 18, 2016 at 8:25pm

A good example is the elements themselves. 

Stars have a lifespan...and, different types of stars have vastly different lifespans.

Elements are made by stars, and, different elements are made by different stars, as the process by which they burn differs.

In a static universe, the distribution of these elements would reflect a static distribution pattern.

In a dynamic universe, an expanding one for example, the distribution would reflect that pattern.

It reflects an expanding universe.



You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service