Yet Another Development In Physics Suggests Eternal Universe And No Big Bang

Discussion in 'Scientific Studies' started by haidut, Feb 17, 2016.

  1. haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    10,013
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    As some of the forum users have noticed I am a fan of the physicist David Bohm and his views on "wholeness and implicate order" (actual title of one of his books). After being vilified for more than 50 years, the ideas of Bohm have been having a kind of a renaissance lately as a result of a work done at MIT and other universities with the goal of unifying the theory of relativity (TOR) and Quantum Mechanics. Anybody working in physics is keenly aware of the problems in that theory, with the major ones being singularities like the Big Bang / black holes, dark matter, dark energy, etc. There are alternative theories of physics that are just as valid as the TOR, and do not make use of such strange concepts. These theories include the Hoyle-Narlikar and of course my personal favorite Bohmian mechanics.
    Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    De Broglie–Bohm theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    One of the key ramifications of both theories is that the Universe has no beginning and no end (in time). I posted another study some time ago that made a very serious argument against the existence of "beginning" singularities like black holes and the Big Bang.
    Black holes do not exist, so there was no Big Bang either | Ray Peat Forum

    Now this latest study goes a step further and proposes a kind of unification of quantum mechanics and TOR based on some of the Bohmian equations. One of the key predictions of this theory is not only the so-called steady-state (and infinite) Universe but also the fact that space is filled with a type of quantum fluid - i.e. a return to the proverbial notion of the cosmic ether, which dominated physics until the early 1900s. The group at MIT, which performed an experiment partially confirming the correctness of Bohm's theory also modelled space times as a type of superfluid by performing an experiment using a bubble in water.

    http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

    "...Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end. "


    "...The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. 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 their paper, Ali and Das applied these Bohmian trajectories to an equation developed in the 1950s by physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri at Presidency University in Kolkata, India. Raychaudhuri was also Das's teacher when he was an undergraduate student of that institution in the '90s. Using the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, Ali and Das derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the expansion and evolution of universe (including the Big Bang) within the context of general relativity. Although it's not a true theory of quantum gravity, the model does contain elements from both quantum theory and general relativity. Ali and Das also expect their results to hold even if and when a full theory of quantum gravity is formulated."

    "...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. Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations. In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe."


    "...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. In a related paper, Das and another collaborator, Rajat Bhaduri of McMaster University, Canada, have lent further credence to this model. They show that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate (named after Einstein and another Indian physicist, Satyendranath Bose) at temperatures that were present in the universe at all epochs."
     
  2. DrJ

    DrJ Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2015
    Messages:
    182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Arizona
    I've had 3 of Bohm's books sitting on my book shelf for a few years now, so thanks for the motivation to move those up the priority list!

    Speaking of singularities, I've developed quite a suspicion of infinity. The 'proof' of infinity is more or less "think of the biggest number possible, now add one to it, and you have a bigger number! Repeat ad nauseum. QED inifinity." This is usually called proof by induction, and I think it's highly suspect. The proof for Godel's first incompleteness theorem is actually much the same. The unstated assumption in all these things being that one can perform an unlimited number of actions/enumerations just because one can imagine doing it a few times.

    It's probably more accurate to think of infinity as something that can't be proven (empirically), but could potentially be disproven by one contradiction. The fragility of infinity could have big implications because so many modern theories rely on some limit using infinity, but if it's actually the case that there is a finite scale at which a difference can be obtained, it will change how those theories shake out: all differences will actually be finite multiples of some underlying number. And cosmology would definitely be affected. Anyways, I'm gonna hit those Bohmian books now...
     
  3. Emstar1892

    Emstar1892 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2015
    Messages:
    346
    :) these ideas are what I work with on a daily basis. Ever checked out iai.tv? You might enjoy our videos :) also if anyone ever finds themselves in England this summer I think you'd love the festival I'm helping produce, its called HowTheLightGetsIn and so far the physicists in at attendance will be weinberg, wilczek, verlinde, mercini-houghton, smolin, penrose, and a couple of other surprises! The festival events are panel discussions where ideas like the eternal universe will be debated between these guys :)
     
  4. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    930
    How does this fit into the recent gravity wave observation of 2 black holes? Are they just massive objects that don't emit light we can detect? It seems like the existence of black holes should be testable in the near future.
     
  5. Such_Saturation

    Such_Saturation Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    6,423
    :woot::woot::woot:
     
  6. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    10,013
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    That would be my first guess. There are many things that can cause the lense effect in the Universe, including the creation of young matter as Alton Harp discussed it. Harps another outspoken critic of the Big Bang, and Peat mentioned him on his articles. Here is his website, quite fascinating to read.
    Articles - Halton Arp's official website
     
  7. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    10,013
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    This is awesome! I plan on being in Europe over the summer so I will try to visit. You should post more often on the forum about work you guys do. I think there are quite a few fans of your work around here:)
     
  8. jaa

    jaa Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    930
    Thanks for the link! Looks interesting.
     
  9. Parsifal

    Parsifal Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1,062
    What do you thin about the Electric Universe theory that Ray seems to endorse?
     
  10. Drareg

    Drareg Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,707
    Gender:
    Male
    I think fractals and phi are the proof of infinity, I think what cannot be "known "is the maker of the ether if you want to call it that, it can only be known by knowing you can't know it!
    Is it that the paradox is the proof?
     
  11. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    10,013
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    Don't know much about it, but that living organisms are electrical machines is pretty obvious to me at this point. So, it would not be much of a surprise if the Universe turns out to be such an electric medium allowing the appearance and flourishing of electric life forms.
    Btw, where did Ray said he agrees with the EUT?
     
  12. Meatbag

    Meatbag Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    313
    Gender:
    Male
    Politics and Science: Evolution-starting at 17:15

    "For example in cosmology you have the Electric Universe People. A very good, coherent descriptions of observed facts...against the big bang mechanistic type of universe. And Halton Arp, the astronomer who made pictures of galaxies that were visibly connected to each other but moving at very different velocities, tremendously different velocities, that you cant have things tether that are moving at extremely different speeds, meaning that they're at extremely different distances according to the red shift big bang theory"

    Is this the only place he talks about it?
     
  13. Parsifal

    Parsifal Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1,062
    Thank you. Personally, I've read it on an email he sent to someone that was posted on a Facebook group, he said that he thought it was closer to the truth that mainstream physics paradigms but I don't remember his exact words.
     
  14. Parsifal

    Parsifal Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1,062
    New To EU - Home maybe you can start with this website and free book?
     
  15. Drareg

    Drareg Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2016
    Messages:
    1,707
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not sure he is endorsing it, probably highlighting how they have used facts and are being very reasonable yet being ignored.
    I'm guessing Peat is interested in the Magnetic aspect of it also, if it is electric and the evidence seems to be there,what's beyond electric must be magnetism?
    Morphogenic fields.
     
  16. tobieagle

    tobieagle Guest

    Glad to know that you are also interested in David Bohms work Haidut.

    I first encountered him when I was learning for my oral exam of quantum mechanics.
    I always had problems with learning the mathematical formalism because I couldn't understand the underlying paradigm.
    As I was researching for alternative interpretations I encountered Bohmian Mechanics.
    But I had not enough time to go deeper into it at that moment.
    So during my oral exam my professors noticed that I had some struggles answering their questions.
    I told them about my problems and that I found this alternative approach of David Bohm and asked them what they thought about it.
    They just rolled their eyes and looked out of the window...


    "When students first take quantum mechanics, they find they can't understand it. But a year later, they say there is nothing to understand, because it's just a system of computations". -David Bohm

    At 5:56.
     
  17. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    10,013
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    Bohm is a wise man indeed for saying that as this is how anybody I have met that deals with quantum mechanics feels. I think there is a famous (and dogmatic) approach to interpreting quantum mechanics that every physics student hears about. It just says "shut up, measure, and calculate". It is considered one of the "main" schools of QM.
    I think the tide in QM is slowly starting to turn due to more and more experiments coming out suggesting that communication through entanglement is possible, thus violating general relativity. So, people are looking for ways to explain it and the Copenhagen interpretation of QM just won't do.
    We'll see, we live in interesting times.
     
  18. Emstar1892

    Emstar1892 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2015
    Messages:
    346
    I didn't see this! Do come along, the full programme is up now so you can see all the events together - HowTheLightGetsIn 2016 Full Festival Lineup just filter it for 'science' if you want a quick overview. Hope it appeals! :)
     
  19. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    10,013
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
    Oh perfect, thanks for letting me know! I like the description "philosophy and music festival". I don't think many people have tried to combine philosophy and music before :)
     
  20. OP
    haidut

    haidut Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Messages:
    10,013
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA / Europe
Loading...