Article 68% of physicists don’t think that time started at the big bang (cosmology)

[C C]

https://www.popsci.com/science/physicist...ng-survey/

EXCERPT: After reviewing answers from over 1,600 physicists, the questionnaire’s authors published their key takeaways earlier this year in Physics Magazine. The results? Physicists are very divided on explanations for some of the universe’s fundamental operations.

The most dramatic relates to the big-bang theory (technically known as the Lambda Cold Dark Matter theory). About 68 percent of respondents said they don’t think the famous moment necessarily marks the beginning of time. Some of this has to do with how the big bang is presented in popular culture—contrary to many depictions, the theory specifically explains how the universe expanded from a single extremely hot, dense prior state of existence. This means it technically may have very little to do with the beginning of time.

The only other majority opinion pertains to the immediate moments following the big bang. Only 51 percent of physicists agreed that the immediate moments following the big bang involved an incomprehensibly fast period of expansion commonly known as inflation.

Subjects got far more contentious from there, although some of it was understandable. Given how much remains to still learn about dark matter, 17 percent of survey takers think the mysterious material is composed of an undiscovered particle or particles. Around 12 percent argued it could be explained by tweaking the theory of gravity. At best, barely 21 percent of physicists hypothesized it may be some combination of these and other answers.

Quantum physics continues the chaos. Nearly 19 percent of scientists think string theory is likely the best way to integrate gravity into quantum physics, while only 12 percent offered loop quantum gravity as an alternative. Meanwhile, 18 percent lean towards the suspicion that gravity can’t be integrated in any way.

If the survey presents one clear takeaway, it’s that these diverse theories are in no way an indictment of the present-day state of physics. These aren’t amateurs—they’re researchers who base their arguments on volumes’ worth of data, calculations, and scientific testing... (MORE - missing details)

[stryder]

https://www.popsci.com/science/physicist...ng-survey/

EXCERPT: After reviewing answers from over 1,600 physicists, the questionnaire’s authors published their key takeaways earlier this year in Physics Magazine. The results? Physicists are very divided on explanations for some of the universe’s fundamental operations.

The most dramatic relates to the big-bang theory (technically known as the Lambda Cold Dark Matter theory). About 68 percent of respondents said they don’t think the famous moment necessarily marks the beginning of time. Some of this has to do with how the big bang is presented in popular culture—contrary to many depictions, the theory specifically explains how the universe expanded from a single extremely hot, dense prior state of existence. This means it technically may have very little to do with the beginning of time.

The only other majority opinion pertains to the immediate moments following the big bang. Only 51 percent of physicists agreed that the immediate moments following the big bang involved an incomprehensibly fast period of expansion commonly known as inflation.

Subjects got far more contentious from there, although some of it was understandable. Given how much remains to still learn about dark matter, 17 percent of survey takers think the mysterious material is composed of an undiscovered particle or particles. Around 12 percent argued it could be explained by tweaking the theory of gravity. At best, barely 21 percent of physicists hypothesized it may be some combination of these and other answers.

Quantum physics continues the chaos. Nearly 19 percent of scientists think string theory is likely the best way to integrate gravity into quantum physics, while only 12 percent offered loop quantum gravity as an alternative. Meanwhile, 18 percent lean towards the suspicion that gravity can’t be integrated in any way.

If the survey presents one clear takeaway, it’s that these diverse theories are in no way an indictment of the present-day state of physics. These aren’t amateurs—they’re researchers who base their arguments on volumes’ worth of data, calculations, and scientific testing... (MORE - missing details)

I'm currently looking at the theory that maybe Pythagoras was close to right about saying the universe was a Dodecahedron, Although it would be similar to a Tesseract.

The theory is based on if the speed of light was breached (which you likely know is a physical improbability) that anything sent beyond that speed would cease to exist in our frame of reference (as it would be moving faster than all wave functions and particles relative to it, so the theory here is zero-rest mass.) I theorize that whatever would be sent (Likely energy) would end up converging at a "nullpoint".

That nullpoint would be where all supersymmetry occurrences of universes (That all expand out from the initial nullpoint position) would send multiple identical energy packets that would stack up to create the initial Big Bang occurrence.

In other words we are very close to how the universe started at all times. It's only when we actually make the initial breach that time would have started and further injections into that nullpoint would likely add to the Big Bangs initial energy and expansion rate.