|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 24, 2015 14:52:11 GMT 1
I was quite surprised to hear of this hypothesis from one of the scientists working on the LHC in Cerne
This hypothesis claims that time extends backwards infinitely so there never was a 'start time' called the big bang
Apparently they hope to find small black holes in the LHC after it is switched on tomorrow. They hope to discover the 'gravity rainbow effect' whereby gravity exerts different forces on different wavelengths of light - this will apparently reinforce the hypothesis that there was no Big Bang
|
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Mar 24, 2015 16:48:28 GMT 1
I would have preferred your discussion title to have been "There Might Have Been No Big Bang". It's just a hypothesis (as you have said) with no proof. I don't see how they can explain the observed expansion of the Universe without a Big Bang.
I can't get my brain around the idea that time had no beginning and stretches back infinitely. The Universe has a "young" character about it; it is still dominated by the simplest atom, hydrogen, with a low proportion of heavier elements made by generations of stars.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 27, 2015 1:38:59 GMT 1
I would have preferred your discussion title to have been "There Might Have Been No Big Bang". It's just a hypothesis (as you have said) with no proof. I don't see how they can explain the observed expansion of the Universe without a Big Bang. What's been observed is a redshift, correlated with distance (which is itself inferred from various highly theoretical and constantly recalibrated standard candles.) It's a plausible explanation, of course (that it's caused by an expansion from a point origin) but there are many other possible explanations. For example, for just one, suppose that the further you look the greater the quantum of action becomes - h bar increases its size with distance. Effectively that would mean that a second here would be a second and a bit so many million of parsecs away, and a bit more a bit further on. Hence you'd see a red shift, exactly as observed - the further you look the greater the red shift of those sources would be. As with the way the red shift is interpreted now, there would be nothing privileged or special about our place in the universe in this alternative explanation - every point would see the same effect. You might object - but why should such a stretching of the space-time vibration of action (or however you choose to theoretically interpret this highly mathematical concept of h-bar) occur? Well - maybe that's the way the universe is. The "tension" inherent in its field dissipates the further it has to "travel", like the spinginess of an elsatic band - the bigger it is the slacker its zing. I'm merely pointing out that no one has "observed" any expansion. It's a theory, explaining what has been observed (spectral records in laboratories). |
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 27, 2015 1:54:06 GMT 1
Incidentally, the above alternative explanation is not at all radically different from the standard nonsense spouted about the "expansion of the universe" by people who profess to be experts about the subject. I've lost count of the times that I've read from such self-appointed explicators that the galaxies are not really moving apart from each other, it's space-time itself that's expanding, like the surface of a balloon being blown up. There used to be a lady on this board who could tie herself up in unbelievably complicated knots trying to peddle this philosophically contradictory garbage.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 27, 2015 1:56:14 GMT 1
She's gone to greener pastures now, sadly. I think she took some sort of exception to Nay, for some reason. I may be wrong. It may have been Jean - we all get that feeling now and again.
|
|
