Symbianize Forum

Most of our features and services are available only to members, so we encourage you to login or register a new account. Registration is free, fast and simple. You only need to provide a valid email. Being a member you'll gain access to all member forums and features, post a message to ask question or provide answer, and share or find resources related to mobile phones, tablets, computers, game consoles, and multimedia.

All that and more, so what are you waiting for, click the register button and join us now! Ito ang website na ginawa ng pinoy para sa pinoy!

Atheists and Agnostics Meeting Place

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello! Muling nabuhay lang parang si Jesus lol!

Kamusta thread? Active padin pla :)

Hello sa mga old friends ko dito at hello sa mga bago na diko na kilala :)

- - - Updated - - -

someone who can't present posts/arguments other than these types, yet still opens his mouth nonetheless, fits the description better. good luck

barado lahat ng posts e, di nga lang makabanat ng matinong arguments yet siya tong malakas makatawag ng bobo. hays...

nakaka-miss din yung minsan may mga naliligaw na ganito dito (stupidity is entertaining). some of them go as far as defacing the entire symbianize with their stupidity which got them banned, by the way.

but then again, masaya rin minsan kung may level headed na makikipagdebate with really good knowledge of what he's representing. though no one will be able to convince the other, at least viewpoints are shared which may lead to an answer, or raise more questions that need to be answered.

Bro musta? Active ka padin pla dito :) at may mga pasaway padin pla na bumubisita dito :)

Long time no talk :)

- - - Updated - - -

Asan na yung gumawa ng thread na to na sinasabi nyang atheist sya? Buhay pa ba? LOL

If you guys no longer believe in God because 'you think he abandoned you, you think he doesn't listen, you saw a man killed at the street and no one helped, you saw lives taken because of catastrophes, you're hearing news about thievery, rapes, murder, terrorism, violence or what have you" then I pity you... Because what you have was just BELIEF and not FAITH.

You guys wants to see, feel, or hear things first before you can tell it's real. Then let me ask you, do you have Brain? Do you have Heart? You might have seen it from pictures but have you ever seen, or even touched your heart or brain even once? If no, then what makes you think you have them? That is what you call FAITH. Believing on something that you have not seen, heard, felt, tasted or what have you... Hope you guys find it too, someday at the right time...

He have PLANS for all of us... We don't have to know, we just have to have Faith. Who wants to spoil the surprise anyway? ;)

You cannot simply check or see your heart and brain by a normal way, instead there are instrument to check if they exist. Parang HANGIN lang din yan na normal argument ng mga theist/believers na hindi mo nakikita pero naniniwala kang andun, and to counter that we have instrument to check if wind exist :) now, the existent of such a powerful being ang mahira patunayan na totoo, kundi sa mga nasusulat lang na maraming flaws...



Kakamiss magreply sa ganto lol
 
Now those right there would comprise the catastrophic events! No way to survive after passing through the event horizon. Unless you're Superman.

Have you watched 10 ways to destroy the earth documentary? Let's use superman as a test subject. hehehe

Hello! Muling nabuhay lang parang si Jesus lol!

Kamusta thread? Active padin pla :)

Hello sa mga old friends ko dito at hello sa mga bago na diko na kilala :)

Hello po boss. :)
 
Last edited:
Hello! Muling nabuhay lang parang si Jesus lol!

Kamusta thread? Active padin pla :)

Hello sa mga old friends ko dito at hello sa mga bago na diko na kilala :)

- - - Updated - - -



Bro musta? Active ka padin pla dito :) at may mga pasaway padin pla na bumubisita dito :)

Long time no talk :)

- - - Updated - - -



You cannot simply check or see your heart and brain by a normal way, instead there are instrument to check if they exist. Parang HANGIN lang din yan na normal argument ng mga theist/believers na hindi mo nakikita pero naniniwala kang andun, and to counter that we have instrument to check if wind exist :) now, the existent of such a powerful being ang mahira patunayan na totoo, kundi sa mga nasusulat lang na maraming flaws...



Kakamiss magreply sa ganto lol

mnyahahaha, bihira na rin mag-online. busy sa life e. counting all the blessings i received from the mythical man/woman/thing in the sky, which i earned from my employers/clients through hard work using my own blood and sweat (oh the irony). pero i still drop by to read since very intellectual pa rin mga discussions dito.

i find it amazing that from the likes of robotcalculator, aliester and co., buhay pa rin and still kicking god's non-existent ass (subject for verification by a certain eli) tong thread na to. keep it up pips :D
 
mnyahahaha, bihira na rin mag-online. busy sa life e. counting all the blessings i received from the mythical man/woman/thing in the sky, which i earned from my employers/clients through hard work using my own blood and sweat (oh the irony). pero i still drop by to read since very intellectual pa rin mga discussions dito.

i find it amazing that from the likes of robotcalculator, aliester and co., buhay pa rin and still kicking god's non-existent ass (subject for verification by a certain eli) tong thread na to. keep it up pips :D

Haha! Same busy din sa life, i thought tuluyan na nawala tong symb dati kaya tinamad nako tignan. Good thing active pa mga eli dito, oh missing the old days lol!


Keep it up guys :)
 
Gawa sila from protons, neutrons and electrons( sa isang salita, sub-atomic particles). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom]

Kung gusto mo ng proof, proposed ng mga greeks... Tapos ni-refine na lang nina John Dalton, Robert Brown, Hans Geiger, JJ Thompson, Neils Bohr.. etc etc etc etc . Nadi-discuss na ito sa elementary at highschool. At physics at chemistry 101. Yan ay kung present ka sa klase mo. :lol:

Kung live proof ang gusto mo, andun sa Large Hadron Collider sa Switzerland. Madami silang live show sa youtube. :lol: Kung gusto mo pa rin ng live na atom, hawakan mo na lang yung sarili mo. Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus = Dyan ka gawa. Inom ka ng tubig, 2 atoms ng H at isang O .

Hindi lang tatlo ang sub-atomic particles, madami silang tropa. Andun sa standard model. Kaso ang gulo ng model kung first time mo sya iintindihin pati ako nabaliw. hahaha [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle]

Kung first time mo babasahin ang mga ito, mahirap talaga. Pero kung may solid foundation ka na sa basic chemistry or physics, makakatulong yun sa iyo. :D

Koya hindi mo ata na interpret ng tama ung question ko, OFC given na ung fact na Parts nga ng ATOM yan, but basically san galing ang atom? Hindi ko naman po tinatanong kung anong parts ng atom. Then kung still insist po na yan ung sagot sa question ko, i revise ko po ung question ko. San po galing ung Neutrons,Protons and Electrons, and other sub-atomic particles?
 
Last edited:
Koya hindi mo ata na interpret ng tama ung question ko, OFC given na ung fact na Parts nga ng ATOM yan, but basically san galing ang atom? Hindi ko naman po tinatanong kung anong parts ng atom. Then kung still insist po na yan ung sagot sa question ko, i revise ko po ung question ko. San po galing ung Neutrons,Protons and Electrons, and other sub-atomic particles?

If you really want an answer to your question, you will have to go beyond the basic formulation of matter that states that it cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. Among other things, this venture must lead you to Paul Dirac's sea of particles, which eventually led to the discovery of antiparticles, the vacuum energy, otherwise known as the zero-point energy, all the physics and mathematics of string theory to explain how Planck-scale strings vibrate to account for all matter—that is, the atoms that concern your inquiry—and how the empty space that we know is really not "empty" but a virtual cauldron of particles that are created and annihilated ad infinitum everywhere in the universe, until you come to the charge parity violations at the initial state of the Big Bang theory to account for the fact that the universe as we know it is still populated by matter instead of nothing, when you consider that the laws of matter-antimatter collisions should not make us all possible in the first place. If that is not enough for you, you may opt to include in your quest the latest road taken by scientists, which involves invoking the Higgs Field to explain the small excess of matter over antimatter that pervades our universe. Now again, Higgs Field should take you somewhere else, but in brief, it completes the particle accounting of the so-called Standard Model, as the field/particle that imparts masses to your other atom subparticles. Daunting? Then I rest my case.

Also, I am curious: what brings you to ask about the origins of atom in the first place? I hope this is not a trick question to lure us into the old debate about creation all over again, the mystic brouhaha about creating from nothing, etc., etc. :)
 
Last edited:
Koya hindi mo ata na interpret ng tama ung question ko, OFC given na ung fact na Parts nga ng ATOM yan, but basically san galing ang atom? Hindi ko naman po tinatanong kung anong parts ng atom. Then kung still insist po na yan ung sagot sa question ko, i revise ko po ung question ko. San po galing ung Neutrons,Protons and Electrons, and other sub-atomic particles?
First of all, hindi ako physicist. I'm answering you sa kung anong alam ko sa science. So these are the facts.

Nagtanong ka about sa atom. Sinagot ko na composed sila ng particles. Walang mabubuong atom kung electrons lang or nucleus lang. It needs all of them. Chemistry 101.

Ngayon yung sub-atomic particles, nasagot na din ng maayos. Galing sa quarks etc etc etc.

Ngayon, you're asking na kung saan galing na yung lahat na ng particles -- eto ngayon ang sagot dyan (physicists, correct me na lang.) Galing sila sa energy ng big bang (pwede vice versa kasi ang effect ng e=mc2)

And this time baka itanong mo kung saan galing ang energy ng big bang. ang sagot ko dun is unknown. baka may iba pa sagot ang mga tao or physicists/ chemists

That would be a philosophy question
 
If you really want an answer to your question, you will have to go beyond the basic formulation of matter that states that it cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. Among other things, this venture must lead you to Paul Dirac's sea of particles, which eventually led to the discovery of antiparticles, the vacuum energy, otherwise known as the zero-point energy, all the physics and mathematics of string theory to explain how Planck-scale strings vibrate to account for all matter—that is, the atoms that concern your inquiry—and how the empty space that we know is really not "empty" but a virtual cauldron of particles that are created and annihilated ad infinitum everywhere in the universe, until you come to the charge parity violations at the initial state of the Big Bang theory to account for the fact that the universe as we know it is still populated by matter instead of nothing, when you consider that the laws of matter-antimatter collisions should not make us all possible in the first place. If that is not enough for you, you may opt to include in your quest the latest road taken by scientists, which involves invoking the Higgs Field to explain the small excess of matter over antimatter that pervades our universe. Now again, Higgs Field should take you somewhere else, but in brief, it completes the particle accounting of the so-called Standard Model, as the field/particle that imparts masses to your other atom subparticles. Daunting? Then I rest my case.

Also, I am curious: what brings you to ask about the origins of atom in the first place? I hope this is not a trick question to lure us into the old debate about creation all over again, the mystic brouhaha about creating from nothing, etc., etc. :)

Hey man, thanks for backing me up. This is where you shine. :D

I just answer what I know, feel free to correct me na lang. :D

I based my answers on these facts.
View attachment 205314

His question reminds me of the book, A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.
 

Attachments

  • bb_theory.jpg
    bb_theory.jpg
    609.3 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
may pinag kakaabalahan ang ibang mga atis dito.

di na rin masyado makapag comment dito at mas type ko pa ang magdownload na lang ng mga movies to watch rather than answering questions from close minded theists na napapadpad sa lungga natin. nakakatawa na lang ang nabasa ko na gusto pang magpa spoonfeed rather than seeking the answers from their questions. hayssss.............
 
pa OT > ang TALINNO NI Stormer0628 T_T pwede ba ako magpaturo !! about science :hat:

busy yata ang mga kapatid nten sa pag spread ng peace !!!
kailangan ng gibain ang mga pader na nagpapawatak sa ating mga TAO !!
 
If you really want an answer to your question, you will have to go beyond the basic formulation of matter that states that it cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. Among other things, this venture must lead you to Paul Dirac's sea of particles, which eventually led to the discovery of antiparticles, the vacuum energy, otherwise known as the zero-point energy, all the physics and mathematics of string theory to explain how Planck-scale strings vibrate to account for all matter—that is, the atoms that concern your inquiry—and how the empty space that we know is really not "empty" but a virtual cauldron of particles that are created and annihilated ad infinitum everywhere in the universe, until you come to the charge parity violations at the initial state of the Big Bang theory to account for the fact that the universe as we know it is still populated by matter instead of nothing, when you consider that the laws of matter-antimatter collisions should not make us all possible in the first place. If that is not enough for you, you may opt to include in your quest the latest road taken by scientists, which involves invoking the Higgs Field to explain the small excess of matter over antimatter that pervades our universe. Now again, Higgs Field should take you somewhere else, but in brief, it completes the particle accounting of the so-called Standard Model, as the field/particle that imparts masses to your other atom subparticles. Daunting? Then I rest my case.

Also, I am curious: what brings you to ask about the origins of atom in the first place? I hope this is not a trick question to lure us into the old debate about creation all over again, the mystic brouhaha about creating from nothing, etc., etc. :)

Hehehe, not really. Just asking lang po for own knowledge lng. Wala bang mas madaling explanation for that? :D Btw Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

may pinag kakaabalahan ang ibang mga atis dito.

di na rin masyado makapag comment dito at mas type ko pa ang magdownload na lang ng mga movies to watch rather than answering questions from close minded theists na napapadpad sa lungga natin. nakakatawa na lang ang nabasa ko na gusto pang magpa spoonfeed rather than seeking the answers from their questions. hayssss.............

Wow sarcastic si kuya. Thread mo to? :D

For Our Visitors
If you have to ask anything, feel free. btw, we have apple juice on the frigged. -Thread Started

Kuya gawa ka sarili mo thread :D And one more thing, How can you say so na Theist ako? Mahirap talga pag sobrang talino no? False conclusion agad nagagawa, masobrahan ka niyan kuya. Baka magbigte ka? :clap: :clap:
 
^- Binigay na sa iyo ang summary. Yun na ang madaling explanation. The rest, hahanapin mo na lang.

Dun naman sa reply sa iyo ni dhanzboy, yung tanong mo naman kasi is natuturo na sa school. hahanapin na lang sa youtube. Babasahin na lang sa libro. Wag ka na magtaka kung bakit.

There is no point of stating the For our visitors . Sinabi ko na sa iyo and Stormer yung concept. Again, hahanapin mo na lang yung ibang details.

Kung tutuusin, mali yung post mo, dun ka dapat sa School and Academics. Dahil sa iyo na rin nangaling, knowledge lang ang habol mo.

Kahit ako iisipin kita as one of the theists dahil sa maling category ka nagtanong. Because generally, most theists are lacking something.
 
Last edited:
Hehehe, not really. Just asking lang po for own knowledge lng. Wala bang mas madaling explanation for that? :D Btw Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -



Wow sarcastic si kuya. Thread mo to? :D

For Our Visitors
If you have to ask anything, feel free. btw, we have apple juice on the frigged. -Thread Started

Kuya gawa ka sarili mo thread :D And one more thing, How can you say so na Theist ako? Mahirap talga pag sobrang talino no? False conclusion agad nagagawa, masobrahan ka niyan kuya. Baka magbigte ka? :clap: :clap:

Reading the post earlier, I don't think anyone actually specified it to be you (though from the looks of it, it did nudge you a bit).

That comment actually applies to a lot of people dropping by, mostly theists. It is a given, you see people being sarcastic to some theists here, who at times troll the thread (seriously, during our time here, we've seen the worse of their kind). Including me, at times.

Spoonfeeding was never a nice thing to do for people. It limits people of their potential in problem solving. Also, most of us are seeking answers ourselves. Constantly bugging people for stuff you can actually find on both internet and real world does not earn respect. We found answers ourselves, and are looking for answers on our own. Why can't other people do it too?
 
Last edited:
Bakit pagbigte na agad ,ang sasabihin, sa usaping palitan lamang kurokuro at opinion na ang lahat usaping natatalakay dito ay subjetive pa rin, ng bawat sa sarili natin
 
Hey man, thanks for backing me up. This is where you shine. :D

I just answer what I know, feel free to correct me na lang. :D

I based my answers on these facts.
View attachment 1010284

His question reminds me of the book, A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

It's nothing really. We do not want to encourage spoonfeeding, much less impoliteness, when somebody tries to help, no matter what we think of it. We can be graceful even in disagreement. :) As for me, I'm trying to give him the general outline of what he is up to.

In A Universe from Nothing from Krauss, he very much arrives at the same idea of quantum fluctuations in the vacuum to account for the appearance of matter in the universe. It's a decent theory, really, and in agreement with much of what the Standard Model has to say about the subject.

If you are up to it, there are highly speculative, but also very interesting take on the existence of matter and everything in the Universe. One such is called Random or Process physics, and you may find some lively discussions here: http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/random_reality.html

If you want to go further, why not delve into String/Superstring theory and its correlates, M-Theory and Holographic Theory. If you do, be ready to be blown away by Edward Witten, Juan Maldacena and their colleagues in this field, hehe. The latest discovery of the amplituhedron is also very nice, and should take you back to that Godel discussion in Process Physics by Cahill.

Cheers!

- - - Updated - - -

pa OT > ang TALINNO NI Stormer0628 T_T pwede ba ako magpaturo !! about science :hat:

busy yata ang mga kapatid nten sa pag spread ng peace !!!
kailangan ng gibain ang mga pader na nagpapawatak sa ating mga TAO !!

The least I could do for you, perhaps, is to point out specific disciplines and fields of study that might help you get started on the most substantial developments in physics nowadays. I promise di ka mawawala sa relevant discussions pag nakuha mo ang essential points nila:

1. Standard Model
2. de Broglie/Bohm Physics, an attempt to demystify quantum physics helped by Bell's theory of inequality. It's also a scathing commentary on the Copenhagen interpretation of physics.
3. String/Superstring/M-Theory
4. Holographic Universe (Juan Maldacena, a special take on string theory)
5. Process Physics, by Reginald Cahill
6. Higgs Particle
7. Amplituhedron (Can you imagine space and time as not fundamental features of reality, but just emerging aspects of a more fundamental reality??)

My advice is to take on each one a little bit at a time, otherwise they could overwhelm you. Yan ayaw daw nila ng spoonfeeding so eto outline na lang, hehe.

- - - Updated - - -

Hehehe, not really. Just asking lang po for own knowledge lng. Wala bang mas madaling explanation for that? :D Btw Thanks.



Hehe, yun lang. Ang pinakamadali cguro yung quantum fluctuations at Planck-scale/string level. Yung vibrations ng space, or strings, depending on your temperament, would then create the atoms and all matter/energy that we now observe in the universe. Teka, alam mo ba na 4% lang ang matter sa buong universe? (At may element of luck pa yan. Bakit? Dahil kung balanced ang amount ng matter at antimatter sa simula't simula, eh dapat wala tau dahil supposedly magkacancel out kada pair. So bakit daw meron excess matter? Diyan naman pumapasok yung usapin tungkol sa matter-antimatter asymmetry at charge parity violations na binanggit ko na.) This is for those who think that matter/energy is the main component of the universe. Not the case. The whole universe as a matter of fact is more empty space, inflating space at that, and more dark energy and dark matter if you would subscribe to this interpretation at the moment. I used "subscribe" because there are other scientists who would love to dispute this take on the universe and assert that the universe essentially has no beginning or end, etc., etc. We live in an exciting age of knowledge, so why not get in and enjoy the ride.

As for others, you might want to refer sa list na inindicate ko previously.
 
Last edited:
This just came in from the science front:

Grand tree of life study shows a clock-like trend in new species emergence and diversity: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-grand-tree-life-clock-like-trend.html

View attachment 205809

Temple University researchers have assembled the largest and most accurate tree of life calibrated to time, and surprisingly, it reveals that life has been expanding at a constant rate.

"The constant rate of diversification that we have found indicates that the ecological niches of life are not being filled up and saturated," said Temple professor S. Blair Hedges, a member of the research team's study, published in the early online edition of the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution. "This is contrary to the popular alternative model which predicts a slowing down of diversification as niches fill up with species."

The tree of life compiled by the Temple team is depicted in a new way —- a cosmologically-inspired galaxy of life view —- and contains more than 50,000 species in a tapestry spiraling out from the origin of life.

For the massive meta-study effort, researchers painstakingly assembled data from 2,274 molecular studies, with 96 percent published in the last decade. They built new computer algorithms and tools to synthesize this largest collection of evolutionary peer-reviewed species diversity timelines published to date to produce this Time Tree of Life.

The study also challenges the conventional view of adaptation being the principal force driving species diversification, but rather, underscores the importance of random genetic events and geographic isolation in speciation, taking about 2 million years on average for a new species to emerge onto the scene.

"This finding shows that speciation is more clock-like than people have thought," said Hedges. "Taken together, this indicates that speciation and diversification are separate processes from adaptation, responding more to isolation and time. Adaptation is definitely occurring, so this does not disagree with Darwinism. But it goes against the popular idea that adaptation drives speciation, and against the related concept of punctuated equilibrium which associates adaptive change with speciation."

Besides the new evolutionary insights gained in this study, their Timetree of Life will provide opportunities for researchers to make other discoveries across disciplines, wherever an evolutionary perspective is needed, including, for example, studies of disease and medicine, and the effect of climate change on future species diversity.

Researchers around the world utilize molecular clocks to estimate species divergence times, calculating DNA mutational rates with species divergence times from gene and genomic sequences, that together with the fossil record and geological history, provide a constantly improving view of Darwin's "grandeur of life."

These new results add to the decade-long efforts of the Timetree of Life initiative (TTOL), which includes internet tools and a book, led by team members Hedges and Sudhir Kumar. "The ultimate goal of the TTOL is to chart the timescale of life—to discover when each species and all their ancestors originated, all the way back to the origin of life some four billion years ago," said Hedges.

As an ongoing service to the scientific community, Hedges and Kumar plan to continue adding new data to TTOL from future peer-reviewed studies. They also will improve their current tools, such as web and smartphone apps, and develop new tools, that will make it easier to access the information and to explore the TTOL, and for scientists to update the growing tree with their new data.
 

Attachments

  • grandtreeofl.jpg
    grandtreeofl.jpg
    515.7 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
For those who have followed my last previous posts in this thread, here's an article that might be valuable in terms of how all those outlines connect with one another:

From: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxi...ormed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
Cosmologists assume that natural quantum fluctuations allowed the Big Bang to happen spontaneously. Now they have a mathematical proof.

One of the great theories of modern cosmology is that the universe began in a Big Bang. This is not just an idea but a scientific theory backed up by numerous lines of evidence.

For a start, there is the cosmic microwave background, which is a kind of echo of the big bang; then there is the ongoing expansion of the cosmos, which when imagined backwards, hints at a Big Bang-type origin; and the abundance of the primordial elements, such as helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and so on, can all be calculated using the theory.

But that still leaves a huge puzzle. What caused the Big Bang itself? For many years, cosmologists have relied on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously, that the Big Bang was the result of quantum fluctuations in which the Universe came into existence from nothing.

View attachment 205977

That’s plausible, given what we know about quantum mechanics. But physicists really need more — a mathematical proof to give the idea flesh.

Today they get their wish thanks to the work of Dongshan He and buddies at the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics in China. These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations.

The new proof is based on a special set of solutions to a mathematical entity known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. In the first half of the 20th century, cosmologists struggled to combine the two pillars of modern physics— quantum mechanics and general relativity—in a way that reasonably described the universe. As far as they could tell, these theories were entirely at odds with each other.

The breakthrough came in the 1960s when the physicists John Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt combined these previously incompatible ideas in a mathematical framework now known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. The new work of Dongshan and co explores some new solutions to this equation.

At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum.

When this happens, there are two possibilities. If this bubble of space does not expand rapidly, it disappears again almost instantly. But if the bubble can expand to a large enough size, then a universe is created in a way that is irreversible.

The question is: does the Wheeler-DeWitt equation allow this? “We prove that once a small true vacuum bubble is created, it has the chance to expand exponentially,” say Dongshan and co.

Their approach is to consider a spherical bubble that is entirely described by its radius. They then derive the equation that describes the rate at which this radius can expand. They then consider three scenarios for the geometry of the bubble — whether closed, open or flat.

In each of these cases, they find a solution in which the bubble can expand exponentially and thereby reach a size in which a universe can form—a Big Bang.

That’s a result that cosmologists should be able to build on. It also has an interesting corollary.

One important factor in today’s models of the universe is called the cosmological constant. This is a term that describes the energy density of the vacuum of space. It was originally introduced by Einstein in his 1917 general theory of relativity and later abandoned by him after Hubble’s discovery that the universe was expanding.

Until the 1990s, most cosmologists assumed that the cosmological constant was zero. But more recently, cosmologists have found evidence that something is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, implying that the cosmological constant cannot be zero. So any new theory of the universe must allow for a non-zero value of the cosmological constant.

What plays the role of the cosmological constant in Dongshan and co’s new theory? Interestingly, these guys say a quantity known as the quantum potential plays the role of cosmological constant in the new solutions.

This potential comes from an idea called pilot-wave theory developed in the mid-20th century by the physicist David Bohm. This theory reproduces all of the conventional predictions of quantum mechanics but at the price of accepting an additional term known as the quantum potential.

The theory has the effect of making quantum mechanics entirely deterministic since the quantum potential can be used to work out things like the actual position of the particle.


However, mainstream physicists have never taken to Bohm’s idea because its predictions are identical to the conventional version of the theory so there is no experimental way of telling them apart. However, it forces physicists to accept a probabilistic explanation for the nature of reality, something they are generally happy to accept.

The fact that the quantum potential is a necessary part of this new mathematical derivation of the origin of the universe is fascinating. Perhaps it’s time to give Bohm’s ideas another spin round the block.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 : Spontaneous Creation Of The Universe From Nothing :)
 

Attachments

  • 1-INtAsuxJF7cMqoCBmesz-w.jpeg
    1-INtAsuxJF7cMqoCBmesz-w.jpeg
    117.2 KB · Views: 1
Informative posts. Kinda too much for me to eat though, and I am a very gluttonous eater in real life. Need to take those in piece by piece (being a speed reader can sometimes suck). Ahahaha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom