Aussie scientists

[Guest HisG]

http://news.ninemsn....big-bang-theory

You folk know that I am a creationist, reading this, a sentence jumped out at me and made me think of way back in Genesis.

"The reason we use the water analogy is water is without form.

Genesis 1 v1/2: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ² Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Melbourne researchers believe they may be on the brink of rewriting the history of the universe.

A paper being published in a US physics journal suggests it may be possible to view "cracks" in the universe that would support the theory of Quantum Graphity - considered to be the holy grail of physics.

The team of researchers from the University of Melbourne and RMIT say instead of thinking of the start of the universe as being a big bang, we should imagine it as a cooling of water into ice.

"Think of the early universe as being like a liquid," Melbourne University theoretical physics researcher James Quach said.

"Then as the universe cools, it 'crystallises'.

"The reason we use the water analogy is water is without form.

"In the beginning there wasn't even space, space did not exist because there was no form."

Their research rests on a school of thought that has emerged recently to suggest space is made of indivisible building blocks, like atoms, that can be thought of as similar to pixels that make up images on a computer screen.

Mr Quach says the standing model for the origins of the universe, the big bang, needs to be rewritten.

He hopes experimentalists will be able to find evidence to support the theory put forward by the Melbourne team of researchers, that would replace it.

"The biggest problem with the big bang model is the bang itself," Mr Quach says.

"At the bang, physics breaks down.

"The model cannot make any predictions at what occurs at the big bang. You can't use any of the mathematics (or) any of the theories."

Mr Quach and his fellow researchers theorise that if Quantum Graphity "cracks" do exist, they will bend or reflect light, which, if observed through a telescope would support their predictions.

"If they prove my predictions that's really good evidence for the condensed matter model of quantum graphity in which case you can throw out all the other attempts."

....Does it mean I agree with everything I read here? No

Could the scientists have glimpsed some truths about Creation?Maybe - Who knows.

[Guest]

Amen~!

[other one]

Careful, if quantum gravity is correct, the universe might not have had a beginning, whatever that means... Farewell, Kalam

Ciao

- viole

LoL,,,,, I hate it when you post things like this for it's been so long since I've been to school that I don't remember some things and others didn't exist when I was in school.

I'm trying to figure out your statement, so I have to do some reading.... save me some real time here.... How could Quantum Gravity being true mean that the universe had no beginning?

[nebula]

Careful, if quantum gravity is correct, the universe might not have had a beginning, whatever that means... Farewell, Kalam

Ciao

- viole

LoL,,,,, I hate it when you post things like this for it's been so long since I've been to school that I don't remember some things and others didn't exist when I was in school.

I'm trying to figure out your statement, so I have to do some reading.... save me some real time here.... How could Quantum Gravity being true mean that the universe had no beginning?

And who or what is Kalam?

[Guest HisG]

Careful, if quantum gravity is correct, the universe might not have had a beginning, whatever that means... Farewell, Kalam

Ciao

- viole

I don't have to be careful about anything.

If this piece isn't palatable to you, contact the scientists at University of Melbourne and tell them to be careful.

[ByFaithAlone]

Careful, if quantum gravity is correct, the universe might not have had a beginning, whatever that means... Farewell, Kalam

hmm... haven't heard this idea before. Are you talking Hartle-Hawking model? I have heard that such a model would necessitate some type of closed universe in which a Big Crunch exists and as of now, we do not believe that will happen. I think that model also necessitates a non-flat universe which is also unlikely. Additionally, I don't see how the idea of a quantum gravity conflicts with the idea of a beginning as my understanding of the quantum universe theory is that it is not infinite. Furthermore, wouldn't such work contradict accepted scientific belief proposed by Guth, Borde and Vilenkin in 2003 and reaffirmed in 2012?

Granted, this is only with a brief knowledge of such a theory as the math is a little complex for my calc III brain lol

[hippias]

http://news.ninemsn....big-bang-theory

You folk know that I am a creationist, reading this, a sentence jumped out at me and made me think of way back in Genesis.

"The reason we use the water analogy is water is without form.

Genesis 1 v1/2: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ² Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

[...]

....Does it mean I agree with everything I read here? No

Could the scientists have glimpsed some truths about Creation?Maybe - Who knows.

If the the assumed formelssness of water is important for the veracity of Biblical Genesis then it is not true: due to the polarity of the water molecules they form even in their liquid state tetraedical clusters which explain some of the special properties of water and their interaction with other molecules. Hence water can be safely said to sport forms.

I personally think that the scientists just wanted to visualize by simple terms the aspect of formlesseness. The important things, if there are any, are not found in the analogies they use in interviews but in their factual scientific publications. I am not acquainted with Quantum Gravity.

[Guest HisG]

The Genesis account says that the earth was formless and empty.

If you read my thoughts at the end of my OP , then you'll know where I'm coming from : )

I actually only put this article up as food for thought, not to pitch up a debate for or against it.

[Tyler John]

I actually only put this article up as food for thought, not to pitch up a debate for or against it.

What sort of thought, if not 'debate for or against'?

Incidentally, beware of news reports about papers that are 'about to be published'. Publication is not the end of the scientific process, but a half-way house. It is the further attempts to replicate research upon which it triumphs or falls. If every news report we read was true the world would now be using cold-fusion for power, but the fact is that a range of published data claiming successful cold fusion turned out to be unreplicable and unreliable. Of course, this particular research you report may turn out to be correct!

[Guest HisG]

It's not up to me if others want to go hammer and tongs at each other about the article.

Like anyone on the net, I read things, think "Oh yeah, that's interesting or not " and then I move on.

I don't have to have a long drawn out discussion on every bit of material I read - but if others want to - that's their choice.