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

For the numbers:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314009381

CC

Hmmm. Very interesting! Thanks CC :) Will need to read it again when my brain is more brain than shipwreck, but their further exploration of the theory will be extremely intriguing to follow! :)

As the years go by, it seems there is a new piece added to the puzzle, that is the universe.

Thanks CC.

---

To me, the probability that they have it right is just as high as all of the other theories. I also believe that it is highly unlikely that anyone is very close to explaining the "BIG" picture regarding the makeup of the universe. I believe it is very likely that what is not known is vastly larger than what is known on this subject. 100 years from now what we currently believe to be true will be looked upon as rubbish.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I like what I am reading! This is partly agreeing with my own long held theory about the universe. But there are too many "mights" for any conclusions yet. It is as much a theory as mine is, but first time I've found anyone seemingly agreeing with me.

So, you've been forming hypotheses, running experiments, collecting and analyzing data, revising your theory as you go?

Or did you mean "hunch"?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

*looking at title of thread* Oh pleeeze, scientists should discover new things instead of trying to refute old discoveries all the time...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

The most important evidence in favor of a Big Bang is the Cosmic Microwave Background, discovered by two telecommunication engineers, A.A.Penzias and R.W. Wilson (not astronomers) at the Bell Laboratories in 1964.It had been predicted by Leo Szilard in the Thirties but never measured by astronomers.
Tullio

---

One of the problems of understanding the Bing Bang , Multiverses , Laws of quantum Machanices is there one in the same theory .

Everything has all ways been here and all ways will , and has happened before when you add time into it

MMM I thought Gravitons where real and not still theoretical ! Makes me wonder if they are real can we manipulate them AKA: antigrav , new space engines ?

---

The most important evidence in favor of a Big Bang is the Cosmic Microwave Background, discovered by two telecommunication engineers, A.A.Penzias and R.W. Wilson (not astronomers) at the Bell Laboratories in 1964.It had been predicted by Leo Szilard in the Thirties but never measured by astronomers.
Tullio

+1

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

The graviton is not a particle, but a force carrier, like the photon, the W and Z intermediate vector bosons and the Higgs boson, so it has no antiparticle.
Our Le Scienze magazine, the Italian version of Scientific American, has an article which deals not only with the Higgs boson but also with
the Majorana heavy neutrinos, which should be their own antiparticles and maybe solve the dark matter mystery.
I've taken five weeks of lessons on the Higgs field from Edinburgh University, also given by Peter Higgs and I am beginning to understand the physics behind the spontaneous symmetry breaking (J.Goldstone, 1961, forgotten by the Nobel committee) which produces the massive Higgs boson (125 GeV).
Next week they shall cover the experiments done at LHC. I should be in a better condition to understand, since I am simulating them in vLHC@home and Atlas@home.
Tullio

---

The graviton is not a particle, but a force carrier, like the photon, the W and Z intermediate vector bosons and the Higgs boson, so it has no antiparticle.

Damn, back to the drawing board.

:))))))))))))))))))))

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

In my own view, you should not be making the assumption about a possible divine entity being the force behind our current knowledge and creation.

You do not necessarily have to be a theoretical physicist all the time in order to try explaining all the details either.

Microcosmos is assumed to be more complicated than macrocosmos because of the smaller dimensions and at the speed certain things are assumed to be happening.

We assume the existence of the laws of gravity and our notion of the of time as being fundamental principles of nature, but still most things when it comes to the laws of gravity are being readily explained using the equations given by Isaac Newton.

We take it for granted that the universe was created from nothing and that space is a three-dimensional volume which is expanding forever, possibly into oblivion because of the initial exposion, called the Big Bang, which created our existence.

Whether the Big Bang was an explosion, or perhaps something else, we probably never will be able to know with certainty.

Because certain things came along as a result of this event, we happen to be here as well, being able to observe and learn from what is happening. Definitely we know what may have happened in the past, but we will never know what future may bring when it comes to events which may happen.

If you happen to be religious, there may be a possibility that you may be a believer. If so, you are supposed to believe in a divine entity being the reason for the creation of the universe. Still, this place is somewhere which has room for both the beauty and the beast. The first is supposed to be God and the second is supposed to be the Devil.

Creation and destruction has always been existing side by side. When something happens and you are not a believer, you assume that what is happening is because of the laws of nature as they are supposed to be.

Still, we end up being a witness to this processs as it is happening and being able both to learn and make our lessons for those events which supposedly happens all the time.

The most important evidence in favor of a Big Bang is the Cosmic Microwave Background, discovered by two telecommunication engineers, A.A.Penzias and R.W. Wilson (not astronomers) at the Bell Laboratories in 1964.It had been predicted by Leo Szilard in the Thirties but never measured by astronomers.
Tullio

And also the least favorable, 'cause image of Microwave Background image taken by Planck Survayor does not fit Big bang teory!

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

This is not true. They simply don't see the mode-B polarization of the CMB which was claimed by the scientists using a telescope a the South Pole (BICEP2). This has nothing to to with the Big Bang but rather with cosmic inflation.
Tullio

---

On the final lesson in the online course on the Higgs field by the University of Edinburgh prof, John Peacock explained how a dynamical quantum vacuum energy could make away with Big Bang. I cannot explain it here, it is too complex, but maybe there was no Big Bang.
Tullio

---

"Fatti non fosti a viver come bruti ma per seguir virtute e conoscenza"
You were not made to live like brutes, but to follow vertue and knowledge.
Dante, Purgatorio..
Tullio

---

but maybe there was no Big Bang.

You can call the birth (NOT CREATION) of what we see around us anything you like. Big bang, small bang, mild whimper, please yourself, it is only words. All we see and can deduce, is that most stuff out there in the interstellar space is all moving away from us in all directions, and at an ever increasing rate. So at some point it seems that we were somewhere near the centre of what caused that. But we don't actually know.

But the point is that 99.999999% of people on this planet populated by 7 billion people couldn't give a stuff about it all anyway. Phrases like "dynamical quantum vacuum energy" to the man in the street are sheer gobbledegook. The average person simply isn't interested.

I would like to propose that all scientists, theoretical physicists etc etc are rounded up and their kit, and transported to an uninhabited island somewhere. The earth must have a few that could be requisitioned. Lets build a 100ft around the lot of 'em, and just let them get on with it. If they find a universal cure for cancer then fine, they can stick a note out under the door.

Those of us that have a modicum of interest in what they get up to can email them.

Nope...the distances of observable Universe vary...and they do vary much!

Check it yourself...it's even on Wiki, if you don't want to read the articles...

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Still laughing at the thread title, no offense to the OP.

Big Bang Corrolaries we are...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Our very existence depends on the energy density of vacuum, this I have learned. GAIA hypothesis still valid.
Tullio

---

Our very existence depends on the energy density of vacuum, this I have learned. GAIA hypothesis still valid.
Tullio

Our existing universe sprouts from one dense, minuscule.. point in spacetime, nothing existed at that time, no evolution nor mutation of that evolution (not mentioning multiverse for that moment in time). People can try and keep try proving it but it is a God darn fact!

Mainstream media is so hard to avoid these days, as a non-scientist, really frustrating!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

According to prof. Peacock the Universe is one of the multiuniverses that existed before what we call the Big Bang with many different energy densities of the vacuum. When the energy density dropped sharply we have what we call the Big Bang, then followed inflation in a very short time and the Universe expanded.I am trying to resume a lesson which I heard today in a video provided by the University of Edinburgh as the final lesson on the Higgs field. This drop in energy density was caused by a scalar field which is not the Higgs field, because it does not give the right cosmological parameters. So it is still to be discovered.
Tullio

---