The Big Bang Theory under threat from quantum graphity breakthrough

[superstarz]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/sc...-1226454428502


i personally never believed in the big bang theory. how could you just assume out of nowhere there was a big bang n then the universe was formed. i could make up a better story than that.

but now it seems like there is almost a breakthrough to prove the big bang didnt actually happen instead its something called the big chill.
where space was a liquid matter and it formed into ice.
The Big Chill.

Check it out and let me know what you think..

[Landin55]

Sounds just as crazy as any "the beginning" theory. No one truely knows and until we have a Tardis we might never know

[ShimmerSwirl]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/sc...-1226454428502


i personally never believed in the big bang theory. how could you just assume out of nowhere there was a big bang n then the universe was formed. i could make up a better story than that.

but now it seems like there is almost a breakthrough to prove the big bang didnt actually happen instead its sometbjng called the big chill.
where space was a liquid matter and it formed into ice.
The Big Chill.

Check it out and let me know what you think..

Both theories still don't answer the question of where the components came from in the first place.

[Kalyyn]

Right or wrong, it's kind of a beautiful theory. I'm interested to see where it takes us.

[mistuhbull]

I'm not sure how a giant bowl of space spontaneously crystalizing into galaxies is any less "crazy" than a singularity spontaneously exploding and forming galaxies

yes I know that was incredibly over simplified

[Gallahadd]

is it bad I clicked on this thread because I thought you meant Big Bang Theory the TV show?

seriously though.. that's some pretty interesting news, I've heard the 'big chill' theory before and tbh it sounds more reasonable to me than the big bang theory does.

of course I'm terrible at science, so I'm probably wrong .

[Veyne]

i personally never believed in the big bang theory. how could you just assume out of nowhere there was a big bang n then the universe was formed. i could make up a better story than that

For someone trying to think about theoretical physics, you don't really have a firm understanding of what the big bang theory actually entails, do you?

At the end of the day, we're FAR from having a solid understanding on the origins of the universe. The fact that relativity and quantum mechanics completely contradict each other, yet both make very solid observations at their own respective levels (relativity doesn't do well at micro levels, quantum mechanics doesn't do well at macro levels) should be a dead give away that we're far from understanding.

Physics itself is a field of science that has a lot invested in theory. We don't even understand how gravity works nor where it originates.

The best we can do is understand it to the best of our current understanding. It's not like the big bang theory is the end-all be-all of theories. It's not like it's the foundation of a whole civilization's religious beliefs or anything.

If we solidly disprove (or prove) it, then good for us, our knowledge has simply expanded.

[Very Tired]

is it bad I clicked on this thread because I thought you meant Big Bang Theory the TV show?

I did too. Thought Sheldon was having another one of his breakthroughs.

[dwbrown7680]

Sounds just as crazy as any "the beginning" theory. No one truely knows and until we have a Tardis we might never know

damn reminded of the great Who again and now more anxiously waiting for the premiere.....

[checking facts]

both theories are obviously lies.

the old gods created the universe with their almighty tentacles

jk lol

well, I hope they discover which one is closer to the truth soon

[AlthalusStone]

but now it seems like there is almost a breakthrough to prove the big bang didnt actually happen instead its something called the big chill.
where space was a liquid matter and it formed into ice.
The Big Chill.

You realise they're not saying the universe was actually a liquid that froze right? They are just saying you could think of it that way, to be able to picture it in your mind.

What they are actually describing is a phase transition as the universe cooled in its early period.

Anyway it's an interesting theory, and at least it seems they have some ideas to test it, which is always the hallmark of a good theory. It hasn't overturned the big bang yet though. The Big Bang at least has some evidence to support it, as this theory may have in time.

[Wikiy]

This is actually not interesting news at all. It's an over-hyped attempt at attention whoring, at least in my eyes. The Big Bang Theory has very little evidence, but the reason it's widely accepted to be true is because it explains many phenomena which, if Big Bang Theory didn't happen, would have to be explained through different means (for example, the fact that the rate of the expansion is accelerating, meaning it can be calculated at which point everything was in one point in spacetime...if this new theory is correct, it still means everything was in this one spot, except this new theory doesn't say why). This theory opens far more questions than it answers, and therefor there's no reason to accept it as the more probably theory, because it will probably never be possible to determine exactly what happened and why at the start. So we have to do it this way, accept the theory which explains the most.

i personally never believed in the big bang theory. how could you just assume out of nowhere there was a big bang n then the universe was formed. i could make up a better story than that.

Oh do i love people like you:

1) Scientists are not to be questioned by people like you and me. Other scientists question them and then they decide whether it makes any sense through peer reviews.
2) You never believed in Bing Bang Theory, as you say, so the moment you saw something that could refute it, you exaggerate your claims and pretend as if some evidence against it has actually been found.
3) Scientific theories aren't beliefs. They're reasonable and logical assumptions. You're entitled to disbelieve in one, but until scientists actually find some evidence against it, it's the accepted model and we ALL have to act, assume and live out or lives accordingly.

[Deleted]

i personally never believed in the big bang theory. how could you just assume out of nowhere there was a big bang n then the universe was formed. i could make up a better story than that.

What you wrote there is not the Big Bang Theory as I have understood it. The Big Bang Theory is currently the explanation of the expansion of the universe, not how it came into existance.
Also it wasn't an explosion, the "Big Bang" part is from a person dismissing the theory and using it in an attempt at making fun of those proposing the theory. The name stuck.

[vizzle]

I still believe we're just a giant dream of some fat guy on another planet.

[AlthalusStone]

I still believe we're just a giant dream of some fat guy on another planet.

I thought the Earth sat on the back of a turtle which sat on another turtle and so on. What's at the bottom? Why just more turtles

[Wikiy]

Both theories still don't answer the question of where the components came from in the first place.

There actually are no components. All the way down, all we really are are quarks and other elementary particles. All of these are actually points in time around which fields are created. Fields are just projections of energy, and they don't have a boundary, so there is no physical concept of size. This is supported by Einstein's E=mc^2 which says mass and energy are the same thing. Anyway, these points with energy around them can be described purely using information, as can the energy itself, as well as spacetime. The point is, we're all just energy. And you can't even describe energy using size, even in non-modern physics.

[superstarz]

I'm not sure how a giant bowl of space spontaneously crystalizing into galaxies is any less "crazy" than a singularity spontaneously exploding and forming galaxies

yes I know that was incredibly over simplified

because a giant bowl of space spontaneously crystalizing into galaxies means that there was already something there.
the big bang theory means that all the galaxies came out of nothing. do you get me?
how can nothing explode into a universe.

---------- Post added 2012-08-21 at 01:18 AM ----------

For someone trying to think about theoretical physics, you don't really have a firm understanding of what the big bang theory actually entails, do you?

At the end of the day, we're FAR from having a solid understanding on the origins of the universe. The fact that relativity and quantum mechanics completely contradict each other, yet both make very solid observations at their own respective levels (relativity doesn't do well at micro levels, quantum mechanics doesn't do well at macro levels) should be a dead give away that we're far from understanding.

Physics itself is a field of science that has a lot invested in theory. We don't even understand how gravity works nor where it originates.

The best we can do is understand it to the best of our current understanding. It's not like the big bang theory is the end-all be-all of theories. It's not like it's the foundation of a whole civilization's religious beliefs or anything.

If we solidly disprove (or prove) it, then good for us, our knowledge has simply expanded.

actually i do understand what the big bang theory entails thank you very much.
i just simplified it and thats the truth.
the theory goes. they believe there was nothing and from that nothing there was an explosion and hence the big bang theory.
they came up with this theory because the universe is expanding.
just because it is expanding doesnt mean it started from nothing.
i can get a piece of chewing gum and expand it doesnt mean it started from nothing and exploded into everything

[Wikiy]

because a giant bowl of space spontaneously crystalizing into galaxies means that there was already something there.
the big bang theory means that all the galaxies came out of nothing. do you get me?
how can nothing explode into a universe.

No, the Big Bang Theory simply says everything came out of one point, which was still something. It doesn't say anything about what was there before, why the Big Bang happened, or how it was initiated. And no, you can't say one point is nothing, because quarks, electrons, photons, etc, all elementary particles are also just points. And you wouldn't call yourself nothing, now would you?

[AlthalusStone]

because a giant bowl of space spontaneously crystalizing into galaxies means that there was already something there.
the big bang theory means that all the galaxies came out of nothing. do you get me?
how can nothing explode into a universe.

That's actually not what the Big Bang Theory says. It states that the universe came from a singularity, which is a point of infinite density and temperature at a finite point in the past. That's where physics breaks down, so noone can say if the universe came from nothing or not.

[haxartus]

There actually are no components. All the way down, all we really are are quarks and other elementary particles. All of these are actually points in time around which fields are created. Fields are just projections of energy, and they don't have a boundary, so there is no physical concept of size. This is supported by Einstein's E=mc^2 which says mass and energy are the same thing. Anyway, these points with energy around them can be described purely using information, as can the energy itself, as well as spacetime. The point is, we're all just energy. And you can't even describe energy using size, even in non-modern physics.

Basically, mass is just a condensed and cooled down form of energy. At some insanely high temperature, even quarks would need to break down.