�

�

�

�




by Arjun Walia
February 11, 2015
from Collective-Evolution Website

�

�

�

�

�

�

When it comes to the science regarding the true nature of our reality, you won't find a shortage of theories, or a shortage of criticisms of each theory.

�

We are like a race with amnesia, trying to discover and search for an answer that most probably exists, but has yet to be discovered. How did the universe begin? According to new research, there might not have been a big bang.

�

Instead, the universe might have existed forever.

�

The theory was derived from the mathematics of general relativity, and compliment Einstein's theory of general relativity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there."�

Ahmed Farag Ali, Benha University, Co-Author of the study

(source)

The big bang theory postulates that everything in existence resulted from a single event that launched the creation of the entire universe and that everything in existence today was once part of a single infinitely dense point, also known as the "singularity."

�

Here is a good picture representing what the big bang theory is referring to.

�

�

�

�

So the big bang, again, postulates that the universe started out as an infinitely small point in space called a singularity, then exploded and created space where there was no space before, and that it is continually expanding.

�

One big question regarding that expansion is; how did it happen? As you can see in the picture, "who is that guy?!"

�

According to Nassim Haramein, the Director of Research for the Resonance Project,

"For every action there is an equal opposite reaction." is one of the most foundational and proven concepts in all of physics.

�

Therefore, if the universe is expanding then "the guy" (or whatever "he" is), who is blowing up that balloon, has to have some huge lungs that are contracting to be able to blow it up.

�

This a concept that Nassim Haramein began exploring when creating an alternative unified field theory to explain the universe."

(source)

This is one out of many criticisms regarding the big bang theory.

�

There are many considerations to be pondered. Can something come from nothing? What about quantum mechanics and the possibility that there is no moment of time at which the universe did not exist?

�

Again, so many considerations to be pondered.

�

According to Phys.org:

"The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons - hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity.

�

In a related paper, Das and another collaborator, Rajat Bhaduri of McMaster University, Canada, have lent further credence to this model.

�

They show that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate (named after Einstein and another Indian physicist, Satyendranath Bose) at temperatures that were present in the universe at all epochs."

(source)

The theory also suggests (obviously) that there are no singularities or dark matter, and that the universe is filled with a "quantum fluid."

�

These scientists are suggesting that this quantum fluid is filled with gravitons.

�

According to Phys.org:

"In a related paper, Das and another collaborator, Rajat Bhaduri of McMaster University, Canada, have lent further credence to this model.

�

They show that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate (named after Einstein and another Indian physicist, Satyendranath Bose) at temperatures that were present in the universe at all epochs."

As you can see, when quantum mechanics is thrown into the equation things appear to be far different.

�

Again, this new theory is suggesting that the universe could have always existed, that it never was what we perceive to be as "the �beginning." Perhaps it was just an event that did occur that we perceive as the beginning, perhaps the event occurred not from nothing, but something.

�

Again, who is that guy blowing on the balloon in the picture?

�

There is something there that has yet to be discovered.

"As far as we can see, since different points in the universe never actually converged in the past, it did not have a beginning. It lasted forever. It will also not have an end, in other words, there is no singularity.

�

The universe could have lasted forever. It could have gone through cycles of being small and big. or it could have been created much earlier."

Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, Co-Author of the study. (source)

�

�

�

What We Know Is Often Just Theory

�

To conclude, it's clear that we do not yet have a solid explanation regarding what happened during the Big Bang, or if it even happened at all.

�

This new theory is combining general relativity with quantum mechanics, and at the end of the day these are all just theories.

�

Not to mention the fact that theories regarding multiple dimensions, multiple universes and more have to be considered. When looking for the starting point of creation, our own universe might not even be the place to start. It might be hard given the fact that we cannot yet perceive other factors that have played a part in the make up of what we call reality.

�

What is even harder is the fact that quantum physics is showing that the true nature and make up of the universe is not a physical material thing!

�

We just don't know yet, and there are still new findings in modern day physics that delve into non-materialistic science that many mainstream materialistic scientists have yet to grasp and acknowledge.

�

I'll leave you with a quote that might give you something to think about:

"A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality.

�

Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a "mental" construction.

�

Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote:

'The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.

�

Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter'."

(R. C. Henry, "The Mental Universe"; Nature 436:29, 2005)

�

�

"Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension and even anger."

(T. Folger, "Quantum Shmantum"; Discover 22:37-43, 2001)

�

�

�

Sources

�

�

�