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.
I've heard that it was shortened from the Goddamn Particle, by some PR person. One of the scientists called it that because it was freaking impossible to detect, at the time. I'm not sure how well grounded in reality that story is, though.
HAHA, that works for me, makes as much sense as anything else. Leave it to the PR people to cut out the part that makes it make sense.
The Higgs Boson got the name, "The Goddamned Particle" because it was so hard to find. When it came time to publish, though, the editor didn't take well to "goddamned" and did what all editors do - edit.
And thus we have the current dilemma.
Loren: "..........When it came time to publish, though, the editor didn't take well to "goddamned" and did what all editors do - edit."
This might better read:
"When it came time to publish, though, the likely Christian editor didn't take well to "goddamned" and did what Christian editors do - redact".
That could be the story, too, Terry. I've forgotten where I read the original story of how that all happened, but all this crap about the Higgs Boson being "the god particle" owing to some jackass editor tweaking copy to suit himself is wrong in more ways than I can count, certainly from an ethics point of view if nothing else.
I mean, can we say, "change in impact," people?
The physicists, Dr. Terry, could not win. Either way, the theists would bitch. If they published "goddamn," they would be taking the Lawd's name in vain, but if they published "[the] God particle" they'd be accused of dissing young eartherism, since God could hardly be reduced to a particle. (He might settle for an atom.) The implication in any event would be that Nature, not God, provided the raw materials. And BTW, does anyone else wince when the RCC talks about "Natural Law"?
Actually, I've seen completely different, James. Many horribly confused Christians have read about the discovery of the H-B and have started using it as an argument that science has proven that God exists. They don't seem to mind it being called the God Particle. It's kind of sad.
Aye, but here is a conundrum: If science can be wrong, it is not perfect. God, on the other hand, is. God does not get anything wrong. Because God is perfect and the Bible confirms God's creation, Eve really was created from a rib of Adam, she really did talk to Satan in the guise of a serpent, and she really did live among dinosaurs. God Lunacy taken to its absurd reduction, the fundamentalist insanity. If there is no God, then the Bible is unmitigated, total bullshit. And that is precisely what most of us have concluded.
Well, I say that the bible also proves that their god is in fact not perfect. Evil is a much closer description in my opinion. Their book seems to have gotten almost everything wrong, it can't even agree with itself.
...But, fiction can be as perfect as your imagination thinks it is. XD
This contradiction depends on cosmological inflation being true.
Roger Penrose doesn't like cosmological inflation and came up with an alternate explanation called Conformal cyclic cosmology.
It's not a complete explanation, because it depends on an (as yet unknown) theory of quantum mechanics in curved spacetime. But it's certainly a wonderful idea.
I have always said something similar, but not exactly (well, only similar in that it involves universes being born and dying). The idea that the universe is in a constant state of expanding and collapsing could work (though it would NEVER form the exact same way twice unless there really is something controlling it), but I think it is more likely that there are just more parts out there that form the star stuff. Maybe other things collided, and that is how the first gas ignited in our area.
It is fun to speculate, but sadly it isn't likely any of us will live long enough to ever know the truth. (But that is still better than pretending to know, at least we are looking for real answers).