ADVERTISEMENT

No Big Bang?

9ddf469e89fadf79fe3ce51968bfe7675b46dd847198446bc4307949017ac4b4.jpg
 
Stuff like this hurts my brain.

I read the article and it basically suggest that the universe may have existed "forever". But what is "forever"? I mean, doesn't there have to be a beginning to everything? I would think that answer would be undoubtedly "yes" especially to those that don't subscribe to a supreme being.

Mindboggling stuff for sure.
 
Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
Stuff like this hurts my brain.

I read the article and it basically suggest that the universe may have existed "forever". But what is "forever"? I mean, doesn't there have to be a beginning to everything? I would think that answer would be undoubtedly "yes" especially to those that don't subscribe to a supreme being.

Mindboggling stuff for sure.
Yeah, I have a hard time getting my head around the concept of forever.
 
Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
Stuff like this hurts my brain.

I read the article and it basically suggest that the universe may have existed "forever". But what is "forever"? I mean, doesn't there have to be a beginning to everything? I would think that answer would be undoubtedly "yes" especially to those that don't subscribe to a supreme being.
It has to be yes according to the laws of physics. Obviously they still have a few kinks to work out.
3dgrin.r191677.gif
 
Shame to see the science press getting it wrong. The researchers aren't suggesting there wasn't a BB, they just trying to get there without starting at a singularity. They posit a quantum fluctuation as the beginning of the universe. So they're really not even saying the universe - as we understand it, anyway - existed forever but that the quantum potential for the universe has always been there and the potentiality collapsed and then expanded into our universe 13.8 billion years ago. Doesn't sound like a huge difference from our perspective but it does clear up a few issues with a singularity as the starting point.
 
Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:
Shame to see the science press getting it wrong. The researchers aren't suggesting there wasn't a BB, they just trying to get there without starting at a singularity. They posit a quantum fluctuation as the beginning of the universe. So they're really not even saying the universe - as we understand it, anyway - existed forever but that the quantum potential for the universe has always been there and the potentiality collapsed and then expanded into our universe 13.8 billion years ago. Doesn't sound like a huge difference from our perspective but it does clear up a few issues with a singularity as the starting point.
peanuts.jpg
 
Originally posted by tarheelbybirth:
Shame to see the science press getting it wrong. The researchers aren't suggesting there wasn't a BB, they just trying to get there without starting at a singularity. They posit a quantum fluctuation as the beginning of the universe. So they're really not even saying the universe - as we understand it, anyway - existed forever but that the quantum potential for the universe has always been there and the potentiality collapsed and then expanded into our universe 13.8 billion years ago. Doesn't sound like a huge difference from our perspective but it does clear up a few issues with a singularity as the starting point.
Gotta link for that?
 
Stuff like this hurts my brain.

I read the article and it basically suggest that the universe may have existed "forever". But what is "forever"? I mean, doesn't there have to be a beginning to everything? I would think that answer would be undoubtedly "yes" especially to those that don't subscribe to a supreme being.

Mindboggling stuff for sure.
Don't hurt yourself, poopslinger. Take some aspirin.
 
Hubble focused on a tiny TINY portion of the sky and found like a billion galaxies. The things out there, the vastness,…it truly is mind blowing. Even traveling at the speed of light wouldn’t enable you to scratch the surface. It’s awe inspiring but also a bit depressing knowing we’ll never have a clue about it all. Just best guesses from afar.
 
Hubble focused on a tiny TINY portion of the sky and found like a billion galaxies. The things out there, the vastness,…it truly is mind blowing. Even traveling at the speed of light wouldn’t enable you to scratch the surface. It’s awe inspiring but also a bit depressing knowing we’ll never have a clue about it all. Just best guesses from afar.
Think of all the extraterrestrial tourists that could visit Wilmington.
 
Hubble focused on a tiny TINY portion of the sky and found like a billion galaxies. The things out there, the vastness,…it truly is mind blowing. Even traveling at the speed of light wouldn’t enable you to scratch the surface. It’s awe inspiring but also a bit depressing knowing we’ll never have a clue about it all. Just best guesses from afar.
We might know a little bit more in the next few years thanks to this Friday's launch of an Ariane 5 rocket from Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana. Its payload will be the James Webb Space Telescope, described as "the world's premier science observatory."

For anyone who hasn't heard about the telescope, it is designed to peer into atmospheres of distant alien planets and observe some of the first galaxies formed after the Big Bang.

Webb Space Telescope
 
We might know a little bit more in the next few years thanks to this Friday's launch of an Ariane 5 rocket from Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana. Its payload will be the James Webb Space Telescope, described as "the world's premier science observatory."

For anyone who hasn't heard about the telescope, it is designed to peer into atmospheres of distant alien planets and observe some of the first galaxies formed after the Big Bang.

Webb Space Telescope
I'm glad Nasa is collaborating with the world. It is also interesting that none of Europe has an ideal launch point (easterly waters, all that) and have to ship rockets to Africa instead.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT