Further to: So we can get rid of the multiverse if we assume that the laws of nature evolve?
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.
Well this is interesting:
The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity.
No? You mean, they sense that a great deal of effort has been directed to that specific end because the Big Bang conflicts with various scientists’ philosophy?
Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.
In addition to not predicting a Big Bang singularity, the new model does not predict a “big crunch” singularity, either. In general relativity, one possible fate of the universe is that it starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch and becomes an infinitely dense point once again.
In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity.
Right. And if they exist, leprechauns, banshees, and the Red Ettin of Ireland are thought by some to be responsible for the laws of physics.
Motivated by the model’s potential to resolve the Big Bang singularity and account for dark matter and dark energy, the physicists plan to analyze their model more rigorously in the future.
Might be an idea …
“It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once,” Das said. Rest.
Sure. If only the hypothetical were real.
Some people argue that physicists have to speculate in order to begin to solve problems. Fine. But they shouldn’t pretend they have got anywhere when the best thing about their idea is the graphics.
Like I said before, physics today should mean stuff like the Large Hadron Collider. This kind of stuff is what they used to do in the middle ages.
See also: Big Bang exterminator wanted, will train
Physicist says we need more plain Jane physics to bring sense back to the community
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Update: A reader writes to mention a correction the paper’s authors made February 11:
We originally termed the results of this model a theory, which was incorrect due to the lack of evidence. We’ve now edited this to hypothesis. Apologies for the error, guys.
Yes, good idea. When proposing a radical old idea, like the universe has always existed, it pays to be cautious about calling it a theory. The Big Bang, correct or otherwise, was accepted on evidence.