Laws of physics may change across the universe
Sources:Another author on the paper, Michael Murphy of Swinburne University in Australia, understands the caution. But he says the evidence for changing constants is piling up. “We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying,” Murphy told New Scientist. “The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We’re here to test physics, not to assume it.”
"The discovery, if confirmed, has profound implications for our understanding of space and time and violates one of the fundamental principles underlying Einstein's General Relativity theory,"
The findings may imply that the Universe is infinite.
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~mmurphy/ ... universal/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 004112.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... -universe/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... verse.html
Question: What would the implications be if it were to be true?
I've noticed that some scientists are complaining of religious practices. Some say that astrophysics is philosophy disguised as a science.
The Big Bang theory was invented by catholic priest Georges Lemaître for "a day without a yesterday". Lemaître was a personal friend of Albert Einstein.
Albert Einstein initially criticized the theory but ultimately yielded to his friend's theory and helped to promote it. He called his own theory for the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder" while recent evidence has proven it to be correct.
Course of events:
Source: https://www.space.com/31055-removing-co ... under.htmlIn 1929, Hubble published a paper in which he established that not only were galaxies moving away from the Milky Way, but that more-distant galaxies were also receding more quickly. That is, the universe was not static. It was expanding. This observation (and those preceding Hubble's paper) led Belgian priest Georges Lemaître to propose in 1931 that the universe originated from a small and compact state, what he called a "Cosmic Egg" and what is now called the Big Bang.
With the realization that his earlier prejudice for an unchanging cosmos was wrong, Einstein embraced the Cosmic Egg theory and removed the cosmological constant from his equations. He called the Cosmic Egg theory the most beautiful creation story that he ever heard.
Einstein: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and called his own theory the biggest blunder of his career.
I find it hard to believe that Albert Einstein accidentally made a mistake that he called his "biggest blunder" while recent studies are claiming that his biggest mistake was to call his theory a mistake. Also, to believe in a Cosmic Egg story is one thing, but to promote it as a scientist who created a later to be found correct contradicting theory, is another. It is not that easy to give up an idea as a scientist.
Einstein’s Lost Theory Describes a Universe Without a Big Bang
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/ ... -big-bang/But it’s interesting to note that creation myths across cultures tell the opposite story. Traditions of Chinese, Indian, pre-Colombian, and African cultures, as well as the biblical book of Genesis, all describe (clearly in allegorical terms) a distinct beginning to the universe—whether it’s the “creation in six days” of Genesis or the “Cosmic Egg” of the ancient Indian text the Rig Veda.
Why did Albert Einstein give up his theory?
The official story is that Albert Einstein was forced to admit that he was wrong by discoveries of Edwin Hubble. However, recently re-discovered papers show that Albert Einstein "habitually" misspelled the name of Hubble as "Hubbel", indicating that he may not have taken his discoveries serious.
It appears to disprove the official story that Hubble's discovery forced Albert Einstein to admit that he made a mistake.It’s interesting that Einstein repeatedly misspells the name of Edwin Hubble (“Hubbel”). Had he not yet met Hubble in person? We don’t know. The spelling error does hint at the fact that he didn't take Hubble’s discovery serious.
April 4, 1931: Over the next few months he reviewed the published literature on the expanding universe problem. His opinion continued to evolve and in mid-March he sat down and started writing a paper for the Prussian Academy of Sciences where he finally renounced the cosmological constant. In putting it together he only made oblique referenced the works of Hubble and whose last name he habitually misspelled as "Hubbel," indicating that he may not have read any of Hubble's papers.
Why did Albert Einstein decide to promote the Big Bang theory? If there were a motive, might it still be relevant today? There may be value in the answer, to improve the quest for truth in the future or maybe to protect or improve societal interests.
Some scientists are complaining that the Big Bang theory is a religion:
Some recent sources show that the Big Bang theory may be incorrect:1) The Monopole Problem
2) The Flatness Problem
3) The Horizon Problem
You will find the above three problems religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place.
Source: Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.
One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?
I was dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb that inflation is not a scientific theory, was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.
There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al. criticism.
Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered - threat of ‘scientific crisis’
Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang impossibleThe Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.
Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... space-2019
The Horizon Problem may provide a clue that it is not likely that the Big Bang theory is correct.Astronomers have spotted a black hole that is as old as the universe itself, putting a huge question mark over the Big Bang theory.
Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ ... erse-space
https://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe- ... inite.htmlIn our hu-man words, this means 13.8 billion light-years in all directions, the Universe doesn't repeat. Light has been travelling towards us for 13.8 billion years this way, and 13.8 billion years that way, and 13.8 billion years that way; and that's just when the light left those regions. The expansion of the Universe has carried them from 47.5 billion light years away. Based on this, our Universe is 93 billion light-years across and earth is in the exact middle of the Universe.
If we look far out into space, billions of light years away, we see photons with the same temperature -- roughly 2.725 degrees Kelvin. If we look in another direction, we find the same thing. What a coincidence! In fact, when astronomers look in all directions, no matter how distant, they find that all regions have the same temperature. This is incredibly puzzling, Siegel says, "since these regions are separated by distances that are greater than any signal, even light, could have traveled in the time since the Universe was born.
If nature can change in time and if the Universe does not have a beginning, what would the implications be when humans would withdraw from the "Cosmic Egg" aka Big Bang story?
If a creation story was chosen for societal interests, why do people in general need such a story? Are there alternatives while maintaining an accurate search for truth?