Scientists crushed as ‘Big Bang’ evidence evaporates on further analysis

[JimG]

But infinite mass kind of rules out actual faster than light speeds, don’t you think
Best I have seen is some idea on warping space-time to get effective faster than light travel, kind of like Star Trek, but a constant 1G acceleration is pretty fast also without so much of the time dilation harshness.

Yes, it seems to be the ultimate speed limit. Since energy = mass, and a vehicle accelerates by increasing it’s kinetic energy, the more it accelerates, the more massive it becomes, reaching infinite mass at light speed.

But… if one could somehow just jump over that one lightspeed point and go directly to faster than light speed, then you wouldn’t (I think) have infinite mass, but maybe negative mass and negative time and negative length. Just a few drawbacks.

Alternatively, one could look for some point where space is curved back on itself, like a piece of paper folded back on itself. Then instead of taking the long way around, just push right through to the other side, coming out at a point which would take millions of light years going the regular way.

 

[Rubia]

Yes, it seems to be the ultimate speed limit. Since energy = mass, and a vehicle accelerates by increasing it’s kinetic energy, the more it accelerates, the more massive it becomes, reaching infinite mass at light speed.

But… if one could somehow just jump over that one lightspeed point and go directly to faster than light speed, then you wouldn’t (I think) have infinite mass, but maybe negative mass and negative time and negative length. Just a few drawbacks.

Alternatively, one could look for some point where space is curved back on itself, like a piece of paper folded back on itself. Then instead of taking the long way around, just push right through to the other side, coming out at a point which would take millions of light years going the regular way.

Does this mean that the its possible that the past might be undone? For example,in prayer.Our prayers might affect people who already died? Perhaps this is why we pray for the dead?

 

[JimG]

Does this mean that the its possible that the past might be undone? For example,in prayer.Our prayers might affect people who already died? Perhaps this is why we pray for the dead?

That’s a theology question, not a scientific one.

Prayers, no matter when prayed, can be applied by God at the point in time at which they will do the most good. No change of the past is necessary. And we pray for the deceased in purgatory because we remain a community and can offer prayers for them.

 

[Neofight]

Got some support for that statement?

Time must have a beginning or else we have eternal continual creation of time by God which makes sequential events impossible as everything would be simultaneous, wouldn’t it?

Support? Yes. My support is that you can not provide evidence of a precise starting point or endpoint of time…but nice try.,next question?

 

[RGCheek]

Support? Yes. My support is that you can not provide evidence of a precise starting point or endpoint of time…but nice try.,next question?

Mathematics is not evidence?

 

[Darryl1958]

I am no astrophysicist, but I would have thought that the Big bang theorists have described the initial point of the beginning of time with a fairly high degree of precision.

 

[JimG]

I am no astrophysicist, but I would have thought that the Big bang theorists have described the initial point of the beginning of time with a fairly high degree of precision.

I think that perhaps they have described the state of the (tiny) universe just after the big bang with a fair degree of precision. But they can only go back so far before the pre-bang universe simply collapses into a singularity. And no one came describe what goes on in a singularity. That’s what they don’t like about it. (It’s sort of like trying to peer beyond the event horizon into a black hole to see what’s there. You can’t.)

 

[Darryl1958]

I think that perhaps they have described the state of the (tiny) universe just after the big bang with a fair degree of precision. But they can only go back so far before the pre-bang universe simply collapses into a singularity. And no one came describe what goes on in a singularity. That’s what they don’t like about it. (It’s sort of like trying to peer beyond the event horizon into a black hole to see what’s there. You can’t.)

That is the way that I understand it too.

That is the state of existence, or non-existence before the dimensions of space and time exist, except you cannot even say ‘before’ since before is relative to a time and a space.

And scientists have tracked back the events of the explosion up to that singularity, and have given that a timeline.
Nobody would be too successful tracking the big bang to an end, because that scenario has not yet arrived.

 

[Faith1960]

natureworldreport.com/2015/02/03/scientists-crushed-as-big-bang-evidence-evaporates-on-further-analysis/

It was supposed to be a revolutionary breakthrough: last March, a team of scientists found what are known as primordial gravitational waves, or ancient ripples in space-time that would have been produced just moments after the Big Bang, stunning direct evidence of a theory most scientists already hold true.

Or had they? On Jan. 30, two teams of scientists — one operating a European Space Agency telescope and the other the team that submitted the original paper — have decided it was all just a mirage kicked up by ordinary space dust in our galaxy, thus debunking what had been one of the biggest discoveries of 2014, according to a report by the Economist.

Such gravitational waves had long been sought by astronomers, as it would confirm that long-held theory that the universe suddenly expanded rapidly just instants after it exploded into existence, inflating at faster than the speed of light.

Most scientists hold that it is true based on indirect evidence, but so far, no one had been able to provide hard, direct evidence that this is what happened.

It explains why the BICEP2 team had been so excited to stumble upon what it though were primordial gravitational waves, which would have been exactly the direct evidence needed. It would have also allowed cosmologist to settle some key questions about inflation theory, as there are differing opinions on the matter within the scientific community.

However, scientists immediately began to doubt the results soon after the paper was published, as they noted that thin clouds of dust in interstellar space can produce a similar signal. In order to verify that the signal came from primordial gravitational waves, researchers would need to identify and remove such signals from their data, but it appears BICEP2 hadn’t been able to do that, instead relying on the best available maps ofinterstellar dust.

ESA’s orbiting telescope Planck generated better data that was not available to BICEP2 at the time, and its data was featured in the paper to analyze the results of the paper published last year. The result was that when the dust is removed from the data, the signature disappears, dumping cold water on what had been thought to be an exciting discovery.

However, it won’t dull scientists’ zeal to keep seeking evidence of the primordial gravitational waves, as they believe they are out there somewhere. More telescopes will continue to hunt for them, and Planck’s abilities could assist in that effort.

If the Big Bang turns out to be untrue ( I recently read an article that said the universe is eternal and has been around forever) what would that do to the faith that God created the universe out of nothing?

 

[Darryl1958]

If the Big Bang turns out to be untrue ( I recently read an article that said the universe is eternal) what would that do to the faith that God created the universe out of nothing?

The Big Bang has always been a disappointment to atheists.

In terms of the faithful, cosmology is at most an area of personal interest, but it does not really touch on the basics of the faith- that we were created in the image of a God whose nature is pure goodness, and that is our destiny.

The state of the cosmos does not change a thing in a Christians relationship to God. We are still called to follow the same Way, just as we have from the very beginning.

 

[Faith1960]

The Big Bang has always been a disappointment to atheists.

In terms of the faithful, cosmology is at most an area of personal interest, but it does not really touch on the basics of the faith- that we were created in the image of a God whose nature is pure goodness, and that is our destiny.

The state of the cosmos does not change a thing in a Christians relationship to God. We are still called to follow the same Way, just as we have from the very beginning.

IF the universe was eternal, wouldn’t that contradict the Bible and what we are taught about God creating everything?

 

[mlz]

Has anyone referred to the magiscenter.com where Fr. Spitzer is explains what is known from a Catholic and reasoning point of view.

mlz

 

[Faith1960]

Here is the article:

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

 

[Darryl1958]

IF the universe was eternal, wouldn’t that contradict the Bible and what we are taught about God creating everything?

Some might see it that way. I don’t necessarily see the Creation story must be read that way.

 

[Faith1960]

Some might see it that way. I don’t necessarily see the Creation story must be read that way.

Are you Catholic? How do you see the creation story to be read?

 

[Darryl1958]

Are you Catholic? How do you see the creation story to be read?

Yes.

I think the main point of view would be a priestly one, or creating order and rhythms for a state of meaningless void and disorder.

The culmination is therefore the Sabbath.

 

[Faith1960]

Yes.

I think the main point of view would be a priestly one, or creating order and rhythms for a state of meaningless void and disorder.

The culmination is therefore the Sabbath.

That was way over my head. Could you please simplify?

 

[Darryl1958]

That was way over my head. Could you please simplify?

In a word, the purpose of Genesis is liturgy. It helps give meaning to the public rites and practices that the priestly classes of ancient Israel engaged in.

 

[Faith1960]

In a word, the purpose of Genesis is liturgy. It helps give meaning to the public rites and practices that the priestly classes of ancient Israel engaged in.

I thought it was to tell us what God did in creating the universe and us.

Im searching myself, but if anyone finds an article that addresses what it would mean sto our faith if the universe is eternal, id be grateful.

 

[Darryl1958]

I thought it was to tell us what God did in creating the universe and us.

Sure.
All I am saying is the exact nature of the kind of universe he created is of less importance than the idea that we were created in his image.

The exact nature of that universe is way, way, way, way above my ability to understand either way. If God created an eternal universe, then that is fine, I guess. And who says that an eternal God cannot create an eternal universe, much like he can eternally begat a son?
And if he creates a finite universe, that is at least more comprehensible, but is just as unimaginable as infinite eternity really. It is impossible to really graphically imagine what it means for the line to not stretch on into infinity, even if infinity is imaginary too. This is really stuff way beyond the kind of thing that our five senses have been designed to perceive anyway.

So, you initially ask, what will it mean to faith?
And my answer is still, very, very little. The exact shape and nature of the cosmos has very little to do with any of the reasons of why I am a Catholic, or methinks, why anyone is a Christian.