Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

:Puzzled:

So what are the dimensions being played with? I mean three, maybe even four make sense. Height, depth, width - time maybe. Or are they just things that do useful stuff in maths?

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Basically this model may solve some of the problems associated wit the big bang - but so do plenty of other theories. The big bang model has quite a lot going for it though (although it does have obvious discrepancies too), it predicts the light element abundances (when combined with the standard model of particle physics), and is a simple and well motivated model. While this "new" theory may be promising it will take some time to establish whether it has the potential to replace the big bang model as the standard cosmological model as there are many other observations it must recreate.

Sorry - I'm in the habit of using jargon way too much. A scalar field could be gravity, the higgs boson, or some other mechanism we're not aware of.

In this theory it refers to 4 spatial dimensions. While it may seem unnatural to most people not in physics, there is quite a bit of motivation for at least investigating the idea that we "live" in a three-dimensional view of a higher dimensional universe.

Interestingly, and slightly off topic, we may be able to see glimpses of thses extra-dimensions at the LHC... :)

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Yes but what ever dimension you find, outside of our own, is it not going to be a 3 dimensional area in its own right anyways ?, if its possible.And if its not, how can we ever observe it ?

Time being a dimension is questionable , l will admit l dont really understand that.

Anyways this new or oldish new, new proposal contesting the big bang theory, is no where near as good as the big bang model.That is probably why the big bang model will outlast it, and many others that have come and gone.
The big bang model, has an awful lot of red shift data to support it, its pretty likely that a big explosion really did happen, even though we cant find the centre, where it all really started.
Very interesting though !

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

OFFTOPIC sorry guyz but hey, i like your siggy! :p

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Though this sounds a bit complex, the details that is, hasn't it been asumed that materials have always been around. Thus no beginning, no end. As far as I knew we simply believe our current and expanding universe to have come from "the" big bang, but since all materials have been around in one form or an other there has been some sort of universe before the big bang (and after the "big crunge" if that is indeed to happen aswell).

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

No its been more so assumed that before the big bang there was nothing.As in no particals or elements.
We were taught at primary school that before the big bang there was nothing, not even time.
In high school you learn something slighly different.
Then in collage all of what you have been taught about origins, makes no sence anymore because of the realization of the complexity surrounding the topic !

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

I don't know what my textbooks (late 90's, early 2000's) said, but I'm pretty sure they didn't said that there was "nothing at all before the big bang". It said that current theories assumed that the big bang created the (current) universe, that it seemed to expand and perhaps contract again at some point in time. But I am quite certain I didn't read anything along the lines of "before the big bang their were no particles" , that would even make sense, as how could material come out of nowhere? The particles of the universe always having been there in one form or the other makes much more sense. It would be rather revolutionary if a theory would support the creating of material out of a true void!

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Perhaps they're thinking outside the box more then you realize. The normal view is that it all started from somewhere. They're talking about something that defies current logic and our understanding of how things work. But how much do we really know about space and what is out there? We're still stuck on one planet out of an untold number of trillions.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

That's how I think, you summed it up great. We have it stuck in our brains that the logic of our own little planet has to be the same for everything else. Everything that humans know of has a beginning and an end, so the logical thing would be to assume everything has a beginning.

Re: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end.
 

Your mixing what you know now with what used to be taught l think.

We were taught.
There were no particals before the big bang, just mass, and gravity, no elements or particals, or time ,thats how it was taught to us in primary school.

In high school that changes with evidence.

Its a 'theory' that everything was already here just in a different form.
It is supported by evidence.
In that theory does it describe where gravity or mass originated, in the time before time or before the big bang ?

In effect, when the big bang happened, it looks like we got particals and elements from gravity and mass, just what is mass, and just what is gravity, two things humans dont understand properly, but gravity is not something you can make a cup of tea with, water particals are, it could be argued that you got something from nothing in that conversion of energy and mass.
The conversions by product was our universe and the elements in it.

Gravity is a force. Not something you can pick up and throw. Like particals.
Mass, is very confusing when gravity is added, and no human yet understands them properly.
Mass isnt even an object or force, but rather our form of measurement.

Particals are something.
Particals were created in the big bang conversion.
Everything is not energy.Well it is, but it isnt.
Everything contains energy.
A rock is a rock, and its energy is usually bound by its mass and density.
But its still a rock, made from rock particals.
And just to keep you interested...
What is energy ?