By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://blog.alor.org/

# Banging the Big Bang By Brian Simpson

The standard model of cosmology, of the origin of the universe has it that it all began with all matter and energy concentrate in a singularity, some say like a mathematical point, as science geeks/gerks are the conceptual slaves of mathematics and can’t think without it, then somehow it all exploded and there was inflation and before you would know it, a universe. But, workers in quantum mechanics, which is a branched of mathematical-magic, where objects do things that wizards of old would be envious about, now seemingly can jettison the big bang. Just like that, the big bank goes Bang! Or, is it, bust?

https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/06/big-bang-vanishes-quantum-theory-describes-an-eternal-universe/

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

“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. 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 hocin 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.

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.’

But would research that goes against the system be awarded a Nobel Prize? If Bobby Dylan can be given one, surely this ground-breaking work which would seem to raise some doubts for Einstein’s relativity, be given that and more? That will be the day. Going down into the black hole rabbit burrow, or hole, theoretical physicists with time on their hands, so to speak, are now saying that black holes could be portals to other universes, galaxies, or whatever:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-07/scientists-now-believe-black-holes-could-be-portals-other-galaxies

“Though it’s been a recurring theme in science fiction for decades, a black hole itself has never been considered a feasible form of space travel because scientists have always believed that the mysterious tidal forces inside the event horizon would spaghettify and crush anything that dared to enter it. But scientists now say new simulation models are suggesting that a rotating black hole, which contains a unique “mass inflation singularity,” may actually offer safe passage to another part of the galaxy - or a different galaxy altogether. The team of physicists from UMass Dartmouth and Georgia Gwinnett College say their simulations show the singularity at the center of a large, rotating black hole could actually facilitate a “gentle” passage through rips in spacetime. Physicist Gaurav Khanna, his colleague Lior Burko, and his student Caroline Mallary were inspired by the film Interstellar to test whether its central character named Cooper, played by Matthew McConaughey, could have theoretically survived a descent into the film’s fictional black hole, Gargantua.

Mallary built a computer simulation exploring the physics involved and concluded:

“The effects of the singularity in the context of a rotating black hole would result in rapidly increasing cycles of stretching and squeezing on the spacecraft. But for very large black holes like Gargantua, the strength of this effect would be very small. So, the spacecraft and any individuals on board would not detect it.” Scientific speculation concerning exotic properties of black holes has increased in recent years. A 2016 study examined the possibility of five-dimensional black holes shaped like rings which violate the laws of physics, including Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Another paper posited that black holes deposit matter into the far future.”

The problem here for this exotic mathematical theology, is that there are arguments from fellow mathematical theologians, sorry, physicists, that black holes do not exist:

https://www.kurzweilai.net/report-up-for-debate-physicist-says-black-holes-are-a-math-impossibility

“University of North Carolina.

Because black holes are traditionally considered one of the biggest cosmic mysteries — Mersini-Houghton’s statement that they don’t exist has caused controversy. But the science behind the scientific theory of black holes is more complex from a math and physics point of view. Most of us think of black holes as stars that collapse in massive explosions, causing them to become smaller + denser. Mersini-Houghton isn’t questioning the existence of that. But she is questioning what properties black holes have — such as a singularity within a star’s explosion that creates the event horizon. An event horizon is a point so strong that nothing can escape the pull of the black hole: once something goes into a black hole, it disappears. The 2 leading theories about our universe contradict this, however. Historic physicist Albert Einstein PhD’s theory of gravity predicts that black holes can form, but his law of quantum theory says that nothing from the universe can ever disappear. Combine the 2 theories creates mathematical nonsense — and is called “the information loss paradox.”

So how can both theories be correct? The only way to combine the 2 concepts is by stating that some properties we associate with black holes don’t exist. That means black holes — as scientists know them, are impossible. Her calculations require scientists to re-imagine the fabric of space, and re-think the origins of our universe. For many decades, scientists believed that black holes form when a massive star collapses to a single point in space. Imagine planet Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut — called a singularity. The event horizon the point where a black hole’s gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it. Crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. Experimental evidence may one day show physical proof if black holes exist in the universe or not — and in what form. But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive. Laura Mersini-Houghton PhD said: “I’m still not over the shock. We’ve been studying this problem for a more than 50 years — and this math solution gives us a lot to think about.”

In her paper Laura Mersini-Houghton PhD uses 2 seemingly conflicting theories to mathematically prove that black holes don’t exist — because they can’t possibly come into existence in the first place. She also references physicist Stephen Hawking PhD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBfo4SNZq7I

http://discovermagazine.com/2015/april/20-no-such-thing-as-a-black-hole

That would be just too bad for the conventional physicists wouldn’t it!

## Comments