Image: Thomas Fuchs
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Instants after the big bang, the universe underwent a burst of rapid expansion known as inflation. In this period, according to standard cosmology, tiny ripples of energy seeded galaxies and the other large-scale structures we see today. But no one can explain how the ripples formed in the first place. Three physicists now say the key to this riddle lies in quantum gravity, a still tentative theory in which gravity would display the same fuzzy “uncertainty” typical of subatomic physics.
Standard cosmology, based on Einstein's general theory of relativity, cannot explain the origin of the ripples, because it breaks down at very small scales. During the infinitesimally brief period before the start of inflation, called the Planck era, the entire known universe was stuffed into a region many orders of magnitude smaller than an atom. If pushed that far back, relativity makes nonsensical predictions such as infinite energy densities.
To extend the reach of Albert Einstein's theory to such extreme regimes, researchers have developed a theory called loop quantum gravity. Beginning in the 1980s, Abhay Ashtekar, now at Pennsylvania State University, rejiggered Einstein's equations to make them quantum-friendly. Among the consequences are that space itself, instead of being a smooth backdrop, would consist of discrete units called loops and that its microscopic structure could fluctuate among multiple simultaneous states. In recent years physicists have also found that if loop quantum gravity is correct—a big if because experimental evidence is still lacking—then the big bang would really have been a “big bounce” from an earlier collapsing universe.
Ashtekar's team now says that by extending loop quantum gravity techniques it has bridged the gap between the big bounce—which is in the Planck regime—and the onset of inflation and that it can explain those all-important ripples without which you and I would not be here. The ripples, the researchers calculate, would be the natural outcome of quantum fluctuations existing at the time of the big bounce.
The team's predictions, however, differ slightly from those of “vanilla” inflation in a way that could be tested in future surveys of cosmic structure, Ashtekar says.
These results, to appear in Physical Review Letters, provide “a self-consistent extension of inflation all the way to the Planck scale,” Ashtekar says.
The conclusion that quantum gravity might have left an imprint on today's large-scale cosmic structures is “quite surprising and beautiful,” says Jorge Pullin of Louisiana State University, an expert on loop quantum gravity who was not involved in the research.
Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, says that the team still needs “artificial assumptions,” which it pushes back from the onset of inflation to an earlier time. Loop quantum gravity “has many interesting ideas,” Turok says, “but it is not yet a theory one should take too seriously as making predictions.”
This article was originally published with the title The Missing Epoch.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentThe "big bang" must have resulted from an entity that was NOT inert but had the quality of having both great movement and great mass. Therefore, it must have resulted from some form of "electromagnetic" energy that had great mass. However, that contradicts Einstein's theory with regard to E=MC(squared) and the absolute velocity of light which, if it were true, there would have been no "big bang"!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...the entire known universe was stuffed into a region many orders of magnitude smaller than an atom. If pushed that far back, relativity makes nonsensical predictions such as infinite energy densities."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAha... non sensical.
And on the contrary the first part, where everything is stuffed into a teeny space that practically equates to infinite mass, that makes perfect sense, right?
Why, yes. Yes it does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDidn't Scientific American know that rloldershaw wouldn't approve of this untestable unobservable pseudoscience baloney?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Standard cosmology, based on Einstein's general theory of relativity, cannot explain the origin of the ripples, because it breaks down at very small scales. During the infinitesimally brief period before the start of inflation, called the Planck era, the entire known universe was stuffed into a region many orders of magnitude smaller than an atom. If pushed that far back, relativity makes nonsensical predictions such as infinite energy densities."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps even the perceived requirement for an inflationary epoch is a result of, nonsensically, infinitely interpolating the inferred cosmological expansion to that presumed singularity. There really is no evidence or requirement that the universe began as a singularity - in fact prior to the creation of dimensional spacetime what sense does a singularity make?
As I understand, the only requirement is that initial conditions of mass-energy density was sufficient to support a state that could subsequently produce the conversion of energy into the mass of an initial quark-gluon plasma representing the total mass of the entire universe (IMO this total would not include any misconceived dark matter).
I can't do the math, but perhaps the initial spatial dimensions were that of the currently envisioned post-inflationary epoch, if subsequent expansion would support the condensation of fundamental energy into material mass-energy. Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
"The very earliest universe was so hot, or energetic, that initially no particles existed or could exist (except perhaps in the most fleeting sense), and the forces we see around us today were believed to be merged into one unified force."
There is no requirement that the total energy of the universe actually had been contained within an unphysical dimensional singularity or that it subsequently inflated (and somehow ceased to inflate), only that it had once been in a dimensionless state consisting only of fundamental energy.
These mathematicians carry things too far - who needs unphysical infinities?
As I've commented before, I'm ok taking things back to a point around where you are. I'm also ok with speculation on what could have been before that - what usually rattles my cage is that such speculation is usually presented as hard (or even "soft") science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists need to be more confortable with ideas like 'we don't know', 'can't tell based on our current knowledge' and terms around those lines. Especially when even math goes AWOL when taking it one step back from a certain point. Probably the most interesting, challenging subject for modern science, though, so keep these coming
Well, I attempted to reply saying only "Yup!", but I was presented with an error page saying that my comment was empty or suspicious...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the study of a singularity don't we find that Time = 0 at the Event Horizon.Thus wouldn't everything below be frozen in time.No wave or particle function at all.That means that every singularity has a fixed mass and all future mass stays at the edge of the EH.When you are talking about a supermassive Black Hole we would be talking about a foam of BH's closely packed together.Now lets shrink down the whole universe.You would end up with a huge glob of BH's till you reach a point where there is so little space left that it can't contain the blob,or the EV's contained within.And boom.The blob wouldn't be the size of an atom it would instead be thousands of light years across with ripples occurring as each EH broke apart.This would in an instance create a huge ball of space and energy rapidly expanding outward.With an un told number of singularities mixed in the soup.Creating new BH's as the expansion continued with those making new galaxys early in the new universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the concepts of Big Bang, Singularity, Inflation are the inferred concepts arising from the concept of expansion of space which itself is an inferred phenomenon arising from observed cosmological red shift. In a way, it is only the cosmological red shift which is empirically observed concept and all other concepts are the inferred interpretations. Since cosmologists don't find any natural phenomenon which may cause red shift, they have attributed it to the expansion of space. But concept of expansion of space has a nos. of unresolved intrinsic issues viz
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi) In the first place, even if space expands say hypothetically, why it should cause red shift of light. Red shift implies loss of frequency or energy of light. Where does energy of light disappears while propagating thru billion of light years of vacuum. There is no explanation for this.
ii) There is no scientific clarity on the physicality of space which is expanding since Big Bang. Some people contend that empty space is really not empty but filled with some vacuum energy. But when confronted with the issues regarding relation between vacuum energy and vacuum ( space) OR about the source of initial vacuum energy OR source of additional vacuum energy on expansion, they draw blank.
iii) Expansion of space has never been measured directly. It is interpreted that expansion of space causes drag in material galaxies or appeaarnce of additional space between material galaxies causes light from remote galaxies to be red shifted. In either case of interpretation, there should be some bonding force between space and material galaxies. There is no scientific clarity on the bonding force between space and material galaxies.
iv) Concept of space makes one bizarre assumption that space expansion takes place at large inter galactic scales running into billion of light years. At the intra galactic scales ( i.e within galaxies) where distance is in million or less than million of light years, it is assumed that there is nil expansion of space. This assumption tantamount to compartamentalization of space. There is no convincing scientific explanation as to how space which is assumed a smooth, homogenous, unified and integrated whole, non-physical entity can be compartamentalized with some region expanding while others not undergoing expansion.
To sum up, concept of expansion of space is associated with so many unresolved issues that it is difficult to treat this a convincing phenomenon actually occurring at physical paradigm
i) The expansion of space causes light to travel further than it otherwise would - it extends not only the propagation distance traversed but the length of each wave - these effects explain the 'loss of energy'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisii) What "issues regarding relation between vacuum energy and vacuum ( space) OR about the source of initial vacuum energy OR source of additional vacuum energy on expansion?" You seem to have dealt a blank. BTW, vacuum energy is not a standard component of big bang cosmology, although I and some physicist hypothesize its existence to explain certain phenomena.
iii) "There is no scientific clarity on the bonding force between space and material galaxies." There is no scientific clarity for any requirement of "bonding force between space and material galaxies."
iv) "Concept of space makes one bizarre assumption..." Prior to the evidence for expanding spacetime, it was thought that the universe was static and consisted entirely of the Milky Way galaxy; what was eventually discovered to be distant galaxies (each containing many billions of individual stars) were thought to be small, local 'nebulous' clouds of gas. Since there are many (billions) of galaxies, if intergalactic space has NOT been generally expanding, what bizarre event caused the creation of so many distant galaxies distributed throughout space at such vast distances, while nearer galaxies tend to form localized clusters of hundreds of gravitationally interacting galaxies? The development of much larger, merged galaxies and localized clustering of galaxies over time supports the general concept that intergalactic spacetime has 'globally' (universally) been expanding, but gravitation has caused the localized interaction, clustering and merging of galaxies.
In summary, your argument against the expansion of spacetime is not convincing.
i) Why wave length should change at all due to traversing of more distance? Why normal transit without expansion should not lead to wave length change?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt not the wave length which leads to loss of energy but it the loss of energy which leads to increase of wave length. Energy loss is more fundamental and wave length occurs is a consequence of this. There is no explanation as to where energy goes in vacuum?
Further one thing important. There is no actual spatial orientation of wave length in space at physical paradigm. It is a misnomer. Expression of wave length in Angstrom or any length unit is only mathematical expression. Representation of wave length thru wavy crests or troughs is only some pictorial representation. These mathematical or graphical representation have nothing to do with actual phenomena of wave in space.
ii) Vacuum energy may not be an essential element of Standard cosmology but its existence has been empirically established like Casimeir Effect. Hence we can't ignore vacuum energy.
iii) Without some bonding material galaxies and space, galaxies can't disperse away from each other. As per the standard model of expansion of universe, it is the space which expands between galaxies i.e additional space appears in between galaxies. Had there been no bonding force, additional space may slip beneath material galaxies and galaxies shall remain at the same position without any dispersal. How can material galaxies disperse away from each other, arising from expansion of space, in the absence of any bonding force? Absence of binding force means space and material galaxies shall be inert each other. An inert character between material galaxies and space can not cause dispersal or dragging of galaxies. Please contemplate over this.
iv) In a static large space also, galaxies could have dispersed to large distances due to expansion in some super concentration of matter or mass- energy. Why the need should arise for invoking the concept of expansion of space to explain dispersal of galaxies particularly when it is beset with so many abstract issues.
Mr Jtd, I am open to any suggestion provided it is convincing and logical and does not arise from a fixed mindset. Nonetheless, I am not rebutting the concept of expansion of space at all but one should remain conscious of its intrinsic unresolved issues. Unless these issues are resolved beyond doubt, the concept shall remain in cloud.
I request you to please revisit your notions and come out of the fixed mindset
I'm sorry if my mindset doesn't seem to you to be as open as your own...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy go to a " point universe" version at all ?.An oscillating universe seems to make more sense. As per that theory ,the universe does not contract below a certain size nor does it expand beyond a certain size. It keeps fluctuating between these two limiting sizes . Not too much , not too little . There is viable mathematical models for this theory too .This seems to be the simplest model . Therefore , more acceptable applying Occam's razor principle . There could be many models too as scientific curiosities like multiverses , a universe instantaneously branching out at every choice one makes making the choice you did not avail of a universe of it's own to develop , you remaining in the universe where your choice prevailed . Mathematically, an equally viable preposition with no self- contradictions ,theoretically but sounds weird .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoesn't it ? Probably " reality " could be more weird . But that which cannot be measured experimentally becomes relegated to the realm of " philosophy " or meta- science . As it has mathematical backing, its not speculative , but just interesting . Yes science ,meta or main-stream is always interesting in whichever way it manifests ! And, we are living in interesting times , indeed .
While I agree with you on the initial point, there is considerable evidence supporting the expansion of the universe, but none I'm aware of supporting its past or future contraction or other speculative events or conditions that can be supported by conjectural mathematical models, such as multiverses, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe simplest solution is the one that best supports the best available evidence, making the fewest assumptions. Actually, the current evidence (based on very complex interpretation of difficult observational presumptions) supports not just the expansion of the universe but perpetual acceleration of that expansion. Personally, I find that conclusion still less than certain, as IMO there are still open questions regarding the reliability of type Ia SNe as standard candles, etc.
Of course, everyone is free to form their own belief systems...
If space “expands”, it must expand into something. That something must be a universal background structure. If we treat each “loop” not as infinitely small, but as big as the universe, then it will mean infinite closed universes. The “big bounce” can then be explained as the macro equivalent of proton-neutron conversion. The “ripples” will be a natural consequence of these conversions, which will travel in the background structure due to inertia. This will generate a bow shock effect, which will slow it down to create a fixed boundary, from which the ripples will bounce back. It will lead to another “big bounce” and the process goes on repeating, albeit increasingly slowly, so that if we take the current rate of expansion, it will appear as the “inflation”. Structure formation takes place during such interaction. We have a theory for this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbasudeba
Neil Turok are right, this team still needs more and better "artificial hypothesis" and no matter if you have "many interesting ideas", it is still very speculative when he speaks of "quantum loops". In which I agree, is that the better understanding of the cosmos, is located in Einstein's relativity, but in the special relativity, but admitting a region that includes the existence of speeds greater than that of light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the concepts of current cosmology are based upon one phenomenon namely expansion of universe which is interpreted as creation of intervening space between galaxies and dispersal of galaxies thereupon. But nature of space is ill understood and nos. intrinsic unresolved issues are associated with expansion of space. I had highlighted some of these issues in my posts 9 and 11. Though it has become heretic in cosmology to question the phenomenon of expansion of space but one should remember that nothing be sacrosanct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: "During the infinitesimally brief period before the start of inflation, called the Planck era, the entire known universe was stuffed into a region many orders of magnitude smaller than an atom."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince no human observer was present at the beginning, what is the evidence for such an assertion?
Most of the posts here demonstrate how much Scientific American is needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it might be of interest to the question of what happened "before" the big bang, that there was a recent article in "Science" by Ulrich Schneider, in which the were able to achieve temperatures below absolute zero, if only a few millionths of a degree, in a quantum field, I think in a gas stabilized by lasers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis was quite a technical achievement, and I think raises the issue of what the temperature was prior to the Big Bang. There has been speculation that there were infinitely high temperatures and densities, however perhaps this is the absolute opposite of what the pre-Big Bang universe was all about. Perhaps it rather was a sub-zero Kelvin degree universe. If the sub-atomic particles, such as the nucleus and electrons were also at sub-zero temperatures, or with no energy, they would not have been subjected to the current physical laws such as gravity, the weak force, or even relativistic speed of light velocity "C". Nuclear forces couldn't have held atoms together.
There would of been a sub-nuclear, sub-Kelvin universe with no forces, possibly no mass, and no energy, then due to probability, or wave interaction or interference of the sub-nuclear medium resulting in vector summation of waves, the sub-nuclear medium accumulated enough energy to break through to positive Kelvin temperatures.
The resulting sub-Kelvin, sub-nuclear particles reaching Kelvin temperatures possibly resulted in energy waves propagating through the entire sub-nuclear, sub-Kelvin medium and bringing much of the pre-Big Bang universe continuum through the Kelvin temperature barrier into the current known universe. This might of happened with "Inflation" type suddenness. Not necessarily "Inflation" velocity, but "Inflation" suddenness of propagation through the sub-Kelvin universe.
The remnants of the sub-Kelvin temperature universe may be what is referred to as "Dark Energy".
With reference to the fate of the universe, if it loses its energy, through the laws of thermodynamics, very much in effect in our current universe, it may revert again to the sub-Kelvin, Pre-Big Bang energy state, with loss of atomic nuclear stability and once again return to the atomless, temperatureless mass of sub-nuclear particles such as Quarks.
Perhaps a Quark universe or even a particleless, massless, energyless continuum.
As above story involves Prof. Abhay Ashtekar, let me narrate an episode, which happened in January 2005, in Borivali - a suburb of Mumbai, MH, India - after the lecture of Prof. Ashtekar for the public. That program was organized as a part of I.Y.P. celebrations. Some one from the audience asked: what is meant by time and space merging together? On this, the speaker replied - as I remember - they merge together forming space-time continuum. The questioner was not convinced and for a couple of minutes there was some tussle - as I remember.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I am working in global problems in teaching / learning basic concepts of physics / astronomy for about 35 years, such questions / answers do attract me. I do think that such non-conclusive discussions can have adverse effect on the liking for physics among college students. Hence I am mentioning now, as I hope, it will lead to some fruitful discussion and lasting progress. Thank you for your attention.
In fact, I would like to mention that I am active in this field because of Prof. Dennis Sciama's remark in the Preface of a small book Physical Foundation of General Relativity. There he says: Newton's laws of motion are logically incomplete, which leads step by step to Einstein's G.R. But work of many educators, including me, shows that that incompleteness itself has not been completely understood and hence there are grave problems in understanding and popularity of physics.
In this same issue I see that a star relatively close to our solar system has an age of over 13 billion years, isn't it time we stopped adding un-supported speculation to the big bang theory, scrapped it, and started looking again at the data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that the report of negative absolute temperatures should not be taken at face value. I suggest reviewing the comments posted to the Nature News article on the subject,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146
- especially the (currently last) comment posted on 2013-01-11 09:36 AM by John David, explaining that the negative fluctuation reflects a temporary transitory phase state - not a static temperature below absolute zero deg. Kelvin (where no motion exists - a static state of less than no motion cannot exist).
I don't think the experimental results can support the rest of your conjectures...
MOST IMPORTANT ADVANTAGE OF COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY (TOTAL PAGES – 424, PUBLISHED IN THE YEAR 1998, ISBN: 81-7643-0005), WRITTEN BY Nirmalendu das. EMIAL: nirmalgopa@gmail.com , Mob: India 9475089337.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) THE COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY FOLLOWS THE LAW OF NATURE OR PHYSICS. THIS IS SINGLE THEORY.
2) THIS THEORY IS THE THEORY OF CERTAINTY, THEORY OF EVERY THINGS ETC.
3) THE COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY IS VERY CLEAR AND EASY THEORY TO UNDERSTAND THE VAST SCIENCE. IT IS POSSIBLE TO DESCRIBE WHOLE SCIENCE WITHOUT USE OF CALCULUS LIKE MATH.
4) IT IS POSSIBLE TO KNOW DIFFERENT FINDINGS FROM PARTICLE TO THE UNIVERSE BY THIS SINGLE THEORY.
(THE CALCULATED RESULTS ARE EXACTLY TALLIED WITH THE FINDINGS OF OTHER TRADITIONAL THEORIES DONE BY THE SCIENTISTS IN THE DIFFERENT FIELDS OF SCIENCE.)
5) THE COMLLETE UNIFIED THEORY CAN EXPLAIN THE INTERNAL MECHANISM OF MATTERS DURING EMISSION OF ENERGY. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO KNOW FROM THE TRADITIONAL THEORIES. FOR EXAMPLE, WE DO NOT KNOW THE INTERNAL MEHCANISM OF THE EINSTEIN`S EQUATION E = mc2 THAT, IN WHAT WAY MATTER IS RADIATING ENERGY AS m IS NOT ALONE .
6) THIS THEORY CAN SOLVE THE STRUCTURE OF ELECTRON, ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION, BIRTH OF MAGNETISM, MAXIMUM MASS OF THE UNIVERSE, THE SUCCESSIVE DERIVATIVES OF BIRTH OF STARS, GALAXIES, QUASARS, PARTICLES ETC, THUS THE UNIVERSE.
7) IT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE DISTASTEFUL CONCEPT OF SCIENCE LIKE ZERO REST MASS OF THE PARTICLES (MASS OF PHOTON, GRAVITION).
8) THE VALUE OF Pi (π) IS NOT CONSTANT AT EXCITED STATE OF MATTER WHEN PARICLE IS DEFORMED ------ BUT THE SCIENTISTS ARE USING THE VALUE OF π AS CONSTANT IN EVERY FIELDS WHERE NEEDED.
9) THE COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY DO NOT AGREE WITH THE EQUATION OF THEORY OF RELATIVITY OF EINSTEIN OF MASS, AS VELOCITY IS NOT MASS, THAT CAN INCREASE OR DECREASE THE MASS. THE VELOCITY IS ONLY THE ENVONRMENT THAT CAN INCREASE THE MASS BY ACTING MASS TO MASS REACTION.
10) THE COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY CAN EXPLAIN THE MASS OF CURIE PARTICLE (TILL UNKNOWN) WHICH IS RELATED TO ALL SUBATOMIC PARTICLES EVEN HIGGS BOSON, QUARKS. THIS IS VERY NEW SYSTEM, IN WHAT WAY ALL PARTICLES ARE INTERRELATED.
11) COMPLETE UNIFIED THEORY IS SINGLE THEORY. WE CAN SOLVE ALL TO USE THIS THEORY.
12) THIS THEORY CAN GIVE THE ANSWER THAT WHY BLACK PARTICLE, BLACK HOLE ETC. LOT OF THINGS IS THERE.
If preons exist, and if there are two, or more types
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisof these 'sub particles' coiled into certain energy
levels/ frequency's ect.
Would these cause ripples as well as the first clumping
together or organisation of the first subatomic
particles?
A big bounce is probably the best explanation however!
the universe (U) is a bit more dynamic than we think! if the speed of light itself is not a constant but does change slightly over time then there is a host of possibilities. if the U started expanding and light stretched and light speed itself is changing then the dynamic start when did light first start changing, when did the universe start expanding and at what rate, matter had not fully formed then the expansion hit, and when did dark matter come in to play. with these and more questions it should be clear that like a snowflake any small disturbance at any point in past events could make large changes we see today, but to go backwards to find the right ones is like finding a needle in a haystack. maybe nearly impossible but not improbable. remember nothing is fixed, even light itself, is subject to change. remember change is how we evolve, so must the U.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou go faster than light and you see an image of the past. Cant touch it, Smell it, Taste it, or change it other than refracyting the image.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe binding force...., (Higgs Boson Particle), is the fabric of Time! The begining, the end and all inbetween, ...isnt that the definition of time? If you find out the limits of expansion of this molecule and its rate of expansion you can find the beginig and the end. Common sense. If it seems improbable or was made up to fill a space in a theory and it fits most models, not all then it is not a good and stable theory.try something in a more simple and real vein. The other stuff its hard to believe doesnt have to be accepted as the rule. Its why they call it theory. not fact. But it is taught as fact to our children. I.Q. is based on common sense. Common sense is what we accept as common knowledge. Common knowledge and the passing of improper theories makes the scale imperfect and so makes the quotient unstable. Which in turn makes those that hold the higher I.Q.s even dumber than the ones that havent retained this false information. Thier slates clean to accept reality instead of Inspiration to whimsy.
Dont challange but instead rewrite and in turn re-right our base facts. You dont have to conform.
Big Bang? all matter compressed to smaller than an atom? Compressed by? and what happened to that? How about the Big Squirt... A rip in another dimension that our universe flows from.... Makes more sense and takes less proving. It will continue to flow and expand until it reaches the limits of the Dark matter particle. Then it will slow and stop,... then retract and colapse,(probably going back to the other dimension. Other dimensions are not hard to believe. Im color blind but believe that red exists. So a dimension we cant see or fathom isnt so hard for me to believe. Physics 101,... you must have input for output, something cant come from nothing,... and compressing the entire field of space to less than an atom? That would require acceleration from an unknown source. My theory makes a little more sense and doesnt need all the quirky equations that we rack our heads to make to explain what we arent sure about. but if you could time travel ,(right!), You already know this. There are 3 kinds of people in this world,... those that can do math and those that cant! And why is scientific American so hot to find more efficient uses for oil? Get real! Is this magazine run or owned by an oil barron? Lets stop oil usage and sending our boys to die protecting thier precious oil fields. Make the move and go alternative! Stop letting oil run the world. I have a book from world war 2 that tells how to make enough hydrogen to power a smelting plant! They did it then. Why dont we know how now? Wanna Borrow My Book?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow Einstein condesate,... that was on the money! you can even trap light! Push past absolute zero maybe you can stop time. Electrical impulses, ect... and store them. But shove all that stuff into an area smaller than an atom? If it seems impossible it probably is. And you move on to the next theory and give your scientist an aspirin or a tranqualizer because he is overworked and twisted his thought process around trying to do the impossible on paper to grab that grand nobel with his math skills. I saw star wars. I think lucas had more credibility than a scientist that died spending the last 2/3 of his life trying to re write his own theory on everything. Maybe a subject that was a strain on an already overthought brain. I wouldnt try to wrap my head around it! It would drive me crazy! and id start spouting all kinds of wild theories. His iq was not the highest recorded and indeed if we accept his work as common sense, the basis for iq, then we find that we may have a flawed system of rating inteligence because the input was incorect that we use to grade individuals. continental drift for example... take a rounded shell,(our crust), and apply pressure from the sides. mountains form under the crust,.. cracks on top! Now via satelite topo maps look at our mountains and see that inbetween these hills you have circles, all interlocked to form the range. Impact craters! Meet Frued,... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar..ect.Anybody notice that the san andreas fault is a perfect "C"? follow it across the U S and notice it forms a circle. Look dead in the center. Bingo impact point! Rockies front range in colorado,. Perfect "C",.. follow it through new mexico, Kansas, Wyoming and nebraska. Big circle! and in the middle at kansas and colorado border. Impact point. Gravity anomally, Shocked quartz, unstable,and mesas that formed in golden ect,,, 65 million years ago . Hmmm, what else happened then? Extinction event. Tilted front range red rocks kt layer. add it up! The one that hit chixulub had a bigger chunk hit colorado! broke up like schumaker levy. Point being be cautious of what you accept as fact and pay attention to the obvious. Maybe iq ratings someday will mean something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe flawed theory of "an expanding universe" and a theory such as a "burst of rapid expansion known as inflation" are similar to the obviously flawed theory that the earth is the center of the universe. These theories do not explain why quasars do not have time dilation, which is required by "time dilation of cosmologically distant events" that "an expanding universe" should have (see Wikipedia article "Tired Light").
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think, expansion of the universe may be an illusion. Decades ago, Hubble used a period-luminosity relation for variable stars to establish distances, in what we call Hubble's law, in that galaxies display a linear relation between distance and redshift. I think that photons must emit gravitational waves, and so we get a redshift in photons that travel billions of years in space. We should realize that photons lose energy because they emit gravitational waves, since photons act like bits of matter traveling at the speed of light.
We should study how light loses energy before extending a flawed theory to the big bang. For example, we could use the reflector on the moon to measure the loss of energy that photons in a laser beam have after they travel to the moon and back to earth. This would prove that photons do lose energy as they travel long distances, and so we would not need to imagine a big bang.