Reality as Infinite, as Described by Friedmann Equations

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Enlarge
This is an artist's concept of the metric expansion of space, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe) is represented at each time by the circular sections. Note on the left the dramatic expansion (not to …more


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
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.

Old ideas revisited

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.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

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.

No singularities nor dark stuff

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.

New gravity particle

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.
Motivated by the model's potential to resolve the Big Bang singularity and account for dark matter and dark energy, the physicists plan to analyze their model more rigorously in the future. Their future work includes redoing their study while taking into account small inhomogeneous and anisotropic perturbations, but they do not expect small perturbations to significantly affect the results.
"It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once," Das said.

Explore further: Did the universe originate from a hyper-dimensional black hole?

More information: Ahmed Farag Ali and Saurya Das. "Cosmology from quantum potential." Physics Letters B. Volume 741, 4 February 2015, Pages 276–279. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.057. Also at: arXiv:1404.3093[gr-qc].
Saurya Das and Rajat K. Bhaduri, "Dark matter and dark energy from Bose-Einstein condensate", preprint: arXiv:1411.0753[gr-qc].

Journal reference: Physics Letters B

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Peacock/Peacock3_2.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Infinity is simultaneously nothing and something. Existence and non-existence as one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do not have the expertise needed to comment on this. Many infinities of the type you have described have historically been handled by other mathematical forms of expression like string theory. This does not necessarily negate your analysis.

Do not discount the cognitive consequences of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, nor seek to reproduce the statement you provided above above in a peer reviewed journal.

Andre Weil succeeded where others had failed to prove Fermat's last theorem because he was willing to explore a change of mathematical venue. This is not the first time this approach has succeeded, nor, I suspect, will it be the last.

My humblest apologies if this sounds anything like some of Ophiolite's counsel.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Could the 2nd law of Thermodynamics apply? Since the total matter and energy has never nor will ever change?

 

Is an infinitely old universe distinct from an infinitely large space? In other words, does infinity as time transform itself into infinity as space since infinity is infinity despite the fact that the equations say we live in a finite universe yet infinite in age? I.e. does time become space?

 

According to latest data from WMAP, we live in a topologically flat Universe, which infers it is Infinite in extent, and had its beginning 13.83 billion years ago.
How can that be so?
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11839.html
An infinite universe can have an origin at a finite moment in the past because, in general relativity, one can have a 'singularity' condition in which the volume of 3-d space vanishes at a finite moment in the past. Even if the 3-d space was still infinite at that moment, the separations between nearby and distant points reached a limit of zero separation at the same time. Rather than having to drag this moment into the eternal past to 'logically' solve the problem ( which would not work physically), you can solve the problem at the instant of creation, and place this instant at a finite time in the past. This is the unique solution offered by general relativity for a 'problem' that had bedeviled philosophers since the time of Saint Augustine.

and.....
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can see is important. In the figure below, two views of the Universe are shown: on the left for 1 Gyr after the Big Bang, and on the right the current Universe 13 Gyr after the Big Bang (assuming that the Hubble constant is Ho = 50 km/sec/Mpc and the Universe has the critical density.)

 

A more recent article on this subject:

If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang.
In the new formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the universe may have no beginning at all.
"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, Canada.

http://www.space.com/28681-theory-n...=10152664471921466&adbpl=fb&adbpr=17610706465

 

I feel that if one were to know if infinity is a property of matter or reality one would be able to reason whether the universe is infinitely old or not.

 

Would an infinitely divisible reality correspond to infinitely old matter/ energy? Or would that contradict energy quantization?

 

Paddoboy,

Are you saying that a flat/ infinite universe owns no structure? That would make sense. Since an infinite size would own no shape or center. It would occupy all time and space and therefore would be the sum total of existence. Does this make sense?

 

Gee, I wonder what you are going to think is reality tomorrow? Wait, no I don't wonder at all about that...

 

Hahahaha what a joke! You're not smart enough to provide answers as to the nature and properties of reality so you deride me. What a joke.

 

The joke is this thread and all your other:
Reality is [fill in bank with any random thought] threads.
A complete waste of time.

 

Thank you. You have answered all my questions about reality. At least about you.

 

Paddoboy,

Is a finite universe a "caused/ created universe" or is infinity the only option?

 

Over the years, there have been all sorts of constructs submitted about "no big bang", "before the big bang", "the universe has existed forever", etc. About all one can say is that they either fade away or get lost in the growing pile. Below is just a small sample.

Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end: By suggesting that mass, time, and length can be converted into one another as the universe evolves, Wun-Yi Shu has proposed a new class of cosmological models that may fit observations of the universe better than the current big bang model. What this means specifically is that the new models might explain the increasing acceleration of the universe without relying on a cosmological constant such as dark energy, as well as solve or eliminate other cosmological dilemmas such as the flatness problem and the horizon problem...

Did The Universe Create Itself?: [...] Physicists have huge problems trying to work out how the Universe got going ("The day time began", New Scientist, 29 April 1996, p 30). Some say the question of what happened before the beginning of time, space and matter is like asking what is south of the South Pole. Others argue that the Universe has existed forever, or somehow popped into existence out of nothing. "We suggest that the Universe emerged from something rather than nothing-and that that something was itself," says Richard Gott III of Princeton University in New Jersey. This strange suggestion is a spin-off from the theory of inflation which purports to describe what happened immediately before the big bang. In inflation an unusual state of the vacuum grows rapidly and exponentially One version is "chaotic inflation", suggested by Andrei Linde of Stanford University in California, in which inflating regions spawn others of their kind. "These are baby universes which bud off from the Universe like the branches of a tree," says Gott. Gott and his colleague Li-Xin Li say it's possible that a branch of spacetime could loop backwards to rejoin the tree trunk. "Such a thing is possible because Einstein's general theory of relativity permits closed time-like currents - loops of time", says Gott. Gott and Li found that a time loop could have existed before the big bang without violating any laws of physics. Space would have been in a loop of time, perpetually recreating itself. If so, the Universe could be viewed as having given birth to itself. Gott says that asking what the first event in the Universe was becomes meaningless. "Every event in the Universe could have an event preceding it," he says....

What happened before the Big Bang?: [...] The idea that the universe erupted with a Big Bang explosion has been a big barrier in scientific attempts to understand the origin of our expanding universe, although the Big Bang long has been considered by physicists to be the best model. As described by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the origin of the Big Bang is a mathematically nonsensical state -- a "singularity" of zero volume that nevertheless contained infinite density and infinitely large energy. Now, however, Bojowald and other physicists at Penn State are exploring territory unknown even to Einstein -- the time before the Big Bang -- using a mathematical time machine called Loop Quantum Gravity. This theory, which combines Einstein's Theory of General Relativity with equations of quantum physics that did not exist in Einstein's day, is the first mathematical description to systematically establish the existence of the Big Bounce and to deduce properties of the earlier universe from which our own may have sprung. For scientists, the Big Bounce opens a crack in the barrier that was the Big Bang....

Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang: Circular patterns within the cosmic microwave background suggest that space and time did not come into being at the Big Bang but that our universe in fact continually cycles through a series of "aeons". That is the sensational claim being made by University of Oxford theoretical physicist Roger Penrose, who says that data collected by NASA's WMAP satellite support his idea of "conformal cyclic cosmology". This claim is bound to prove controversial, however, because it opposes the widely accepted inflationary model of cosmology. According to inflationary theory, the universe started from a point of infinite density known as the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago, expanded extremely rapidly for a fraction of a second and has continued to expand much more slowly ever since, during which time stars, planets and ultimately humans have emerged. That expansion is now believed to be accelerating and is expected to result in a cold, uniform, featureless universe. Penrose, however, takes issue with the inflationary picture and in particular believes it cannot account for the very low entropy state in which the universe was believed to have been born – an extremely high degree of order that made complex matter possible. He does not believe that space and time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang but that the Big Bang was in fact just one in a series of many, with each big bang marking the start of a new "aeon" in the history of the universe....