There was no "Big Bang" the Universe is eternal?

[SerScot]

That's what this article postulates:

www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/every ... ar-AA9es2p

From the article:

The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory is that none of the equations that explain what happened in the singularity can take us all the way back to the moment the singularity actually, er, happened. Instead, the laws of physics can only explain what occurred from the moment the universe achieved what's known as the Planck Temperature, which happened after the theoretical singularity. Another basic problem is that if the universe is expanding, it must have been expanding from an area that was, at one point, incredibly small and dense—perhaps even infinitely small and dense.

The new model moves away from the "expanding universe" theory. It also sidesteps the matter of the universe's previous infinite size and density, which the paper calls the "smallness problem," by relying on a "cosmological constant" term that puts the universe at a finite size. In other words, instead of originating from a single point in a singularity, the universe has simply always been around. Speaking to Nature Middle East last month, Ali said the theory helped unify quantum mechanics and general relativity:

“Our theory serves to complement Einstein’s general relativity, which is very successful at describing physics over large distances...But physicists know that to describe short distances, quantum mechanics must be accommodated."

Scientists have long appreciated that a more accurate model of the universe might leave out the Big Bang entirely. But the implications of this new model are quite radical, in that not only does it sidestep the Big Bang, but it also sidesteps numerous other theories that scientists have been working with for decades to explain parts of quantum theory that don't fit into the Big Bang model—like the theory of cosmic inflation to explain the universe's rapid exponential growth from its previous small point.

The model also avoids utilizing the theoretical existence of Dark Energy to explain why the universe began to quickly accelerate about 7 billion years into its existence. The Ali–Das model proposes that the universe is filled with quantum fluid, perhaps made up of theoretical massless particles called gravitons, which are thought to help mediate the effects of gravity. Instead of Dark Energy causing objects to accelerate and expand, the theory argues that instead, the quantum fluid exerts a slight but constant force on objects to cause the expansion of space.

Sounds like they're moving back to "ether" as a medium for the transmission of information and away from Spacetime being a fundemental medium.

Is this a load of crap or is there validity to this new hypothesis?

[Cord Hurn]

Is this a load of crap or is there validity to this new hypothesis?

Not being a quantum physicist, I find this hard to determine, SerScot. But I'll go out on a limb and say this is a load of crap, based on:

Scientists have long appreciated that a more accurate model of the universe might leave out the Big Bang entirely. But the implications of this new model are quite radical, in that not only does it sidestep the Big Bang, but it also sidesteps numerous other theories that scientists have been working with for decades to explain parts of quantum theory that don't fit into the Big Bang model—like the theory of cosmic inflation to explain the universe's rapid exponential growth from its previous small point.

The model also avoids utilizing the theoretical existence of Dark Energy to explain why the universe began to quickly accelerate about 7 billion years into its existence. The Ali–Das model proposes that the universe is filled with quantum fluid, perhaps made up of theoretical massless particles called gravitons, which are thought to help mediate the effects of gravity. Instead of Dark Energy causing objects to accelerate and expand, the theory argues that instead, the quantum fluid exerts a slight but constant force on objects to cause the expansion of space.

[Vraith]

I saw a different article about the same paper. From the one I saw:

It SEEMS that the math is legitimate, so far as it's been checked...and a fair number of important contradictions between quantum and everything else go away...
But it predicts things that no one has yet seen [and proposes no way to see them, even indirectly]...not a deadly criticism all by itself, but has to be dealt with.
But it also eliminates some things that have been seen, without proposing any alternative explanations for the fact that they exist [or reasons why they're really somethings else that've just been misunderstood]...they just aren't there. [so far, anyway].
[[those aren't mine...they're paraphrased objections from the article I saw...back to my own speculations now....]]
Yet really good coherent math has a pretty good track record...though not always on things/in ways expected.

So, I'd say there is a high probability that it is a load of crap---but a very rich and useful [once it grows up and finds itself] load of crap.

[Cord Hurn]

Granted, even crap can be productive fertilizer for new thoughts. Perhaps I was a bit harsh.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Is this a load of crap or is there validity to this new hypothesis?

I believe that there's validity to the basic concept, not necessarily the predictions. Basically what it's saying is that to the eyes of Science (to that which Science is capable of "sensing"), there simply is no "t=0" of the Cosmos. It is indeterminate. Depending upon one's perspective, the Cosmos either exists indefinitely or exists solely in the Now. This would appear to seamlessly dovetail with the Quantum paradigm.

I see this admission as good news since it places First Origins back in the domain (or demesne ) of Philosophy and Theology.

[SerScot]

Would it guve credibilty to the idea that time is an illusion?

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Would it guve credibilty to the idea that time is an illusion?

Assuming that you're talking to me (and pardons if you're not), I'd say "probably, yes". Again, with the "Scientifically-speaking" caveat.

To reiterate, I'd say that this admission of the limits of Science is timely since it firmly localizes the apprehension of Time & Space and the contemplation of their mysteries in the Real-World; in the authentically Human sphere.

[Cord Hurn]

Depending upon one's perspective, the Cosmos either exists indefinitely or exists solely in the Now. This would appear to seamlessly dovetail with the Quantum paradigm.

I'm strangely comforted by my confusion. It's an untestable hypothesis (so far), so I don't feel I have to think too deeply about it.

[Fist and Faith]

You don't have to think too deeply about it regardless. Just keep living as you do. No matter what the answer is, we interpret things as we interpret them. We experience things in a certain way, and we call that way time. It works.

[Cord Hurn]

You don't have to think too deeply about it regardless. Just keep living as you do. No matter what the answer is, we interpret things as we interpret them. We experience things in a certain way, and we call that way time. It works.

Well then, I'm on board! As long as my alarm clock still works.

[Fist and Faith]

That's the spirit!

[Cord Hurn]

Thank you, Fist! I suppose we've all gotta come up with some kind of outlook that we can live with. I figure if I don't want to sweat the things that are too small, then maybe not worrying about the things that are too big for my worrying to matter (like the universe) is also the way to go. Especially since we're not going to know the answer anytime soon, right?

[Vraith]

maybe not worrying about the things that are too big for my worrying to matter (like the universe) is also the way to go. Especially since we're not going to know the answer anytime soon, right?

Don't need to worry for us, right now, anyway. I don't worry about it---I'm fascinated by it, though.
Except....maybe we DO need to worry, for us [or at least our kids].
Because it is reasonably likely that practical immortality and God-level intelligence are right around the corner. If it happens, size really does matter. And so does finite/infinite. And so does the nature of time.

But...suddenly occurred to me that that graviton fluid has to be some weird as shit. There is so much of it [and apparently popping in from the quantum] that it is pushing space apart---yet a graviton's "job" is to pull everything together.
And what does it mean for the Higgs? Higgs gives mass...mass/space/gravity are related...gravitons are massless, so don't interact with the Higgs field, yet gravitons carry gravity, which is a function of mass [or the curvature of space...the space that the graviton is both filling out and squeezing in...BAH...I can see hours of physpsychfusion in the near future.

[Fist and Faith]

Physpsychfusion? Is that a musical style that combines psychedelic rock and jazz?

[Vraith]

Physpsychfusion? Is that a musical style that combines psychedelic rock and jazz?

Heh...well, if nothing else it has the same feeling of stupefaction that consuming psychedelics then listening to sound like that entails...
[[it was supposed to be "physpsyCONfusion," but my fingers made a geometric/vector error. Or were corrupted by excess gravometric fluid dynamics.

[Orlion]

I have not looked too much into this... namely because I'm not too convinced this is not "Steady State Theory" with bells and whistles.

And it is one study. If it did not go "against the establishment" there would not be any reporting about it.

As far as the math being "right", math is not some auger's tool to predict anything. It is a logical system and the "language of science". Unlike Vraith, I believe the inability to make predictions of any sort of observable phenomena that the current theory can not make is a huge deal and should be overcome before any one takes it seriously.

[Vraith]

As far as the math being "right", math is not some auger's tool to predict anything. It is a logical system and the "language of science". Unlike Vraith, I believe the inability to make predictions of any sort of observable phenomena that the current theory can not make is a huge deal and should be overcome before any one takes it seriously.

That might not be math's MAIN job, but it is sometimes a bonus effect...especially in the heads of physicists. I've got a grinding wheel...it's not meant to throw pretty sparks and start fires. But I got some cool vid out of the fact that it can and does. [[and like any language, sometimes you can say complete nonsense with it]].
And I said the opposite of "it's not a big deal", IIRC. It will likely fail big time on the large scale. That doesn't mean it's nothing.
Like "Jabberwocky" in math-lish.
We don't have to take it seriously and go all in...it seems to say things important enough to take it seriously enough to check the work and play with, though..