r00t, you're either a terrible "scientist" or a poor troll. Anyone, even without a scientific background, who reads the shit youve posted, can view the author himself, and the general article saying this theory is ungrounded and there's no evidence behind it, its theoretical speculation in physics. This is good and all, but there is no evidence behind this theory.
Also, I like how you italicize the word "theory". The scientific word "theory" has a different connotation than that common version of the word.
You want the big band to be false so badly, that at any sign of it being false you jump on without reading. Did you just read the headline of the article? Heres some copypasta straight from your link:
...
Quote:
|
Rainbow gravity was first proposed 10 years ago as a possible step toward repairing the rifts between the theories of general relativity (covering the very big) and quantum mechanics (concerning the realm of the very small). The idea is not a complete theory for describing quantum effects on gravity, and is not widely accepted.
|
Quote:
|
..."So far we have no conclusive evidence that this is going on," says Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, a physicist at the Sapienza University of Rome who has researched the possibility of such signals. Modern observatories, however, are just now gaining the sensitivity needed to measure these effects, and should improve in coming years.
|
Here, directly from your articles author:
Quote:
|
Awad and his colleagues found two possible beginnings to the universe based on slightly different interpretations of the ramifications of rainbow gravity.In one scenario, if you retrace time backward, the universe gets denser and denser, approaching an infinite density but never quite reaching it. In the other picture the universe reaches an extremely high, but finite, density as you look back in time and then plateaus. In neither case is there a singularity
|
hmmm, proposes theory, isint sure what the consequences are, sounds pretty conclusive.
TLDR; The authors themselves admit theres no conclusive evidence for this idea, hadly "science admits trolltrolltroll". Its a neat idea, but theres no evidence behind it.Ill take my experimentally verified evidence of the big bang theory for now,thankyouverymuch
12-09-2013, 04:18 PM
Hybrid Mode
