Results of research by British cosmologists presented today (6-24-14) at the Royal Astronomical Society's National Astronomy Meeting in Portsmouth, UK say that the Big Bang would have empowered the Higgs boson particle (i.e., the particle that assigns mass to matter) with so much energy in the 1st second of inflation that there would have been a Big Crunch rather than a Big Bang. Per the 1st article below:


....if the physics behind the recently discovered Higgs boson are solid, the rapid inflationary period immediately after the Big Bang nearly 14 billion years ago would have thrown our early universe into chaos. In fact, things would have gotten so out of hand within the first second of our universe’s creation that we shouldn’t even be here — the universe would have collapsed — known, unsurprisingly, as the “Big Crunch” — into nothing even before matter could condense out of the Big Bang’s primordial mess of energy....


Last March a team of scientists using a telescope called BICEPT2 at the South Pole said it had discovered gravity waves in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) of the universe, thereby, proving the Big Bang Theory. Upon peer review it turned out that what they thought was reality could have been a distortion of reality caused by galactic dust. Accordingly, as things stand the gravity waves are unconfirmed. However, the European Space Agency launched Plank space telescope will soon be able to determine any distorting effect by galactic dust. With this additional information a conclusive determination should be possible as to whether BICEPT2 has actually discovered gravity waves in the CMB. The second article below is on the BICEPT2 findings, peer review concerns and the Plank telescope's role. 


According to the British cosmologists, if the BICEPT2 findings are confirmed then the question exists of how the universe can be anything more than a singularity. They assert that if gravity waves exist and what we think we know about the Higgs boson particle is true then there has to be more to discover about particle physics.


Related Article:



Views: 418

Replies to This Discussion

I love cosmology, particle, and theoretical physics...and have nothing but the utmost respect for those that dive head first into such an academic endeavor...however, let's not forget that the best and most crucial component to the scientific method, is reality testing...sure, your theory or mathematics may predict that the measured characteristics of the Higgs should have caused inflation to turn in on itself...but it clearly didn' either the mathematics is wrong, or the physics is wrong (not the same thing), or the collective understanding of the governing dynamics during the first Plank seconds of our universe is flawed...more physics to discover and think about!

I don't understand a word of this. Don't you people know God created everything about 5,000 years ago and put fossils in the earth to fool evolutionists?

Yeah, I was going to add something to that effect, because I'm a wise-ass.  What's your excuse?

Universe should have collapsed, based upon the current math.  Therefor, goddidit.  Never mind the idea of examining our current models and figuring out where they're inaccurate ... or gathering new data with improved instruments.  That's too much like work.

Why work? Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

Seems logical to me, yeah.  ^.^

Thanks for posting this.  Way over my head!  Impressive as all get out, too.  But...

"Upon peer review it turned out that what they thought was realty could have been a distortion of reality caused by galactic dust"  is now my standard excuse whenever I lose my car keys.  

Plus I'm really glad the universe didn't collapse.  I hate it when that happens!

I suppose there is comfort in knowing what happened and why and what will happen; life would be easier if there were a definitive explanation for all of existence. I know how I felt when Newton's laws of motion came into question when scientists started trying to apply Newton's laws to the quantum universe. They just are not under the same rules, I guess. Anyway, there is a lot to learn. I like Feinman's description of not knowing and not being afraid of not knowing. When we have the tools, and the experience, and the experiments, we will know much more than what we now know. 

One thing I do know for certain, during most of Homo sapiens' time on Earth nature was in control. Not any more. Man has control to the point of being capable of outstripping the Earth's food supply, and of rendering the air unbreathable, or atomizing us to dust. The ultimate, of course, is that nature will play the upper hand in the final analysis of things. Earth will go merrily along as humans turn into atoms and our buildings turn into rust and decay. 

It will be interesting to see where this goes. It doesn't necessarily mean that the H-B is wrong, it could be what disproves what we thought we knew in more ways than one. I have always assumed that we are missing too much of the necessary information to know what really happened at the time of the 'big bang', and odds are only when we can get far enough away to get a better view, will we start to understand. There are so many possible explanations, it just goes to show that we know less than we thought. One of the most important rules of science is to remember the reason that the highest level is a 'theory', no matter how much we like our pet theories, if they are proven wrong, then so be it. The facts don't change just because we want them to, only our understanding of them changes, and we must entertain all reasonable possibilities, you never know what we might be wrong about. Our history is full of examples of where a new discovery disproves something we thought of as 'fact'.

To me the idea that either this isn't the only universe (multiple universes, not dimensions), or just one really big universe far beyond what we can see for now, is more likely than just one. After all, the amount of matter can't change, just the form. To me it just makes little sense that there is a 'wall', a limit to all of reality. I just can't imagine that reality doesn't just go on forever. Even if there is a limit how far we can go, there should be something beyond it, even if we can't get there, can't see it. There is a lot of stuff we can't 'see', we find more of it all the time.

There are many reasons why such a thing could fit. Either that time was when the first combustion happened, and the first light was formed. It could be any other universe is just too far away, or even that there is something out there that is interfering with the light from any further away from reaching us. I for one, would rather admit our ignorance, than to 'believe' something in error. Even if the gravity waves are 'proven' it does not necessarily 'prove' the big bang as we understand it, it just proves 'something' happened, not specifically what it was.

And for the record, there will 'always' be "more to discover", about particle physics and everything else. The one thing we can guarantee is that we will never know everything there is to know about anything, there will always be more to learn. XD

Hell, the fact that we don't have a unified model means that there are key components that could be just flat-out missing from the model, or there might be parts that are wrong in some small way that changes other parts of the model drastically.  The details about the H-B could be dead on, and other parts that are in conflict with it could be wrong.  We won't know until we study it in greater detail with better instruments.

Exactly, but like you said, that would take effort, and some people don't want to reexamine anything, even if it increases out understanding of everything. It certainly wouldn't the first, nor last, time we got something wrong. The question is what is wrong, and in what way? When we dismiss things just because they conflict with what is considered 'established', we tend to make mistakes.

As the saying goes, "Question Everything".

The question is what is wrong, and in what way?

We left the God out of the God-particle?  Damned atheistic scientists.

I thought it was called that because the particle was the god, or rather the key factor in one hypothesis.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service