hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...what else have they convinced us to believe..?
astronomy is a funny thing.. no proof just theories and we think this because first we thought that
years ago I took an evening class at the college in astronomy....the phd teaching it thought what he had was gold till some started to ask questions he couldn't answer and then a few more wanted some kind of proof... poor arrogant fellow just couldn't figure out why no one was impressed.
looks like some of those asking questions got loose...bwhahahahahahahah
Thursday, Feb 12, 2015 02:45 PM EST
Everything we know about the Big Bang could be wrong
A radical new theory developed by researchers in Egypt and Canada argues the universe has no single point of origin
Aja Romano, The Daily Dot
This article originally appeared on The Daily Dot.
The Daily Dot Could the Big Bang theory be wrong? A proposed new model of the universe argues yes—the universe has no origin point at all.
In science, the theories with the most staying power are the ones that explain what we don't know with the most simplicity and elegance. And surprisingly enough, the simplest new theory in quantum physics may be the one that's most difficult for us to wrap our heads around: The universe has been around since, well, forever.
Up until now, the theory that's made the most logical sense to explain how the universe began is the Big Bang, which holds that the universe came into being about 13.8 billion years ago as a result of a single event that launched the universe into a continuous state of expansion. Although this theory has long held its own as a way of understanding Einstein's theory of general relativity, as scientists have delved deeper into the fascinating world of quantum physics, the Big Bang model has been a bit shakier.
Now researchers working in Egypt and Canada have proposed a new model with a much simpler idea of the beginning of the universe: There wasn't one. Ahmed Farag Ali of Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology in Egypt, together with Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have presented their research in a paper called "Cosmology from quantum potential" published in Physics Letters B. The new model makes quantum corrections to a previously known equation that used a theory of quantum trajectory originally proposed by the legendary physicist David Bohm. Using the corrected equation to fit Einstein's theory of general relativity, the researchers came up with a model that implies that the Big Bang singularity never happened.
The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory is that none of the equations that explain what happened in the singularity can take us all the way back to the moment the singularity actually happened. Instead, the laws of physics can only explain what occurred from the moment the universe achieved what's known as the Planck Temperature, which happened after the theoretical singularity. Another basic problem is that if the universe is expanding, it must have been expanding from an area that was, at one point, incredibly small and dense—perhaps even infinitely small and dense.
The new model moves away from the "expanding universe" theory. It also sidesteps the matter of the universe's previous infinite size and density, which the paper calls the "smallness problem," by relying on a "cosmological constant" term that puts the universe at a finite size. In other words, instead of originating from a single point in a singularity, the universe has simply always been around. Speaking to Nature Middle East last month, Ali said the theory helped unify quantum mechanics and general relativity:
"Our theory serves to complement Einstein's general relativity, which is very successful at describing physics over large distances...But physicists know that to describe short distances, quantum mechanics must be accommodated."
Scientists have long appreciated that a more accurate model of the universe might leave out the Big Bang entirely. But the implications of this new model are quite radical in that not only does it sidestep the Big Bang but it also sidesteps numerous other theories that scientists have been working with for decades to explain parts of quantum theory that don't fit into the Big Bang model—like the theory of cosmic inflation to explain the universe's rapid exponential growth from its previous small point.
The model also avoids utilizing the theoretical existence of dark energy to explain why the universe began to quickly accelerate about 7 billion years into its existence. The Ali–Das model proposes that the universe is filled with quantum fluid, perhaps made up of theoretical massless particles called gravitons, which are thought to help mediate the effects of gravity. Instead of dark energy causing objects to accelerate and expand, the theory argues that instead, the quantum fluid exerts a slight but constant force on objects to cause the expansion of space.
Finally, the model also potentially explains a phenomenon called Hubble's Law, which has long been seen as proof of the expansion of the universe, in terms that don't actually rely on space-time.
The researchers told Phys.org that they were motivated to explore the theory after realizing what the implications were for problems related to the Big Bang. "It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once," Das noted.
Doubtless this theory, like all good theories, provides more questions than answers. It's not quite a complete theory of quantum gravity, though it may hold up under future theories. It also, sadly, puts paid to the idea that the universe came from a giant black hole.
Still, in a science where the current standard visions of the universe involve concepts like anti-matter, superstrings, 10 dimensions (or more), membrane universes, and multiverses, a theory like this one seems refreshingly like a return to the basics.
I love research like this. There is evidence from observing the Cosmos on the macro scale that the big bang happened. Look at quantum scale and there is evidence there was no big bang. As above.... not below?
The best thing about it all is that it proves we just don't know for sure. I hate it when scientists try to talk in certainties or give the impression we know the big answers. We never have before and we don't now. That is the only thing I'm certain of.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/life-may-have-thrived-on-earth-32-billion-years-ago-study-says/ar-BBhETqN
Life May Have Thrived on Earth 3.2 Billion Years Ago, Study Says
Time
Kevin McSpadden
1 hr ago
Scientists have found evidence that life on earth may have blossomed 3.2 billion years ago, a challenge to the previous theory that the planet was a hostile climate until 2 billion years ago.
Researchers from the University of Washington studied ancient rocks and found indications that 3.2 billion years ago life was sucking an essential nutrient, nitrogen, out of the air and converting it into larger structures, according to a report published in the weekly journal Nature.
"Imagining that this really complicated process is so old, and has operated in the same way for 3.2 billion years, I think is fascinating," lead author Eva Stüeken told UW Today.
Nitrogen is an essential ingredient for life, as everything from viruses and bacteria to complex organisms use the nutrient to build genes.
The process that makes nitrogen easier for organisms to use, called nitrogen fixation, did not emerge until 2 billion years ago. This led scientists to theorize that the earliest ecosystems were clinging on to an essentially uninhabitable planet, but the new study shows that may not be accurate.
"Our work shows that there was no nitrogen crisis on the early earth, and therefore it could have supported a fairly large and diverse biosphere," said study co-author Roger Buick
.........................................
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150216131121.htm
Ancient rocks show life could have flourished on Earth 3.2 billion years ago
Date: February 16, 2015
Source: University of Washington
Summary:
A spark from a lightning bolt, interstellar dust, or a subsea volcano could have triggered the very first life on Earth. But what happened next? Life can exist without oxygen, but without plentiful nitrogen to build genes -- essential to viruses, bacteria and all other organisms -- life on the early Earth would have been scarce. The ability to use atmospheric nitrogen to support more widespread life was thought to have appeared roughly 2 billion years ago. Now research looking at some of the planet's oldest rocks finds evidence that 3.2 billion years ago, life was already pulling nitrogen out of the air and converting it into a form that could support larger communities.
(http://images.sciencedaily.com/2015/02/150216131121-large.jpg)
The oldest samples are sedimentary rocks that formed 3.2 billion years ago in northwestern Australia. They contain chemical evidence for nitrogen fixation by microbes.
Credit: R. Buick / UW
A spark from a lightning bolt, interstellar dust, or a subsea volcano could have triggered the very first life on Earth. But what happened next? Life can exist without oxygen, but without plentiful nitrogen to build genes -- essential to viruses, bacteria and all other organisms -- life on the early Earth would have been scarce
The ability to use atmospheric nitrogen to support more widespread life was thought to have appeared roughly 2 billion years ago. Now research from the University of Washington looking at some of the planet's oldest rocks finds evidence that 3.2 billion years ago, life was already pulling nitrogen out of the air and converting it into a form that could support larger communities.
"People always had the idea that the really ancient biosphere was just tenuously clinging on to this inhospitable planet, and it wasn't until the emergence of nitrogen fixation that suddenly the biosphere become large and robust and diverse," said co-author Roger Buick, a UW professor of Earth and space sciences. "Our work shows that there was no nitrogen crisis on the early Earth, and therefore it could have supported a fairly large and diverse biosphere."
The results were published Feb. 16 in Nature.
The authors analyzed 52 samples ranging in age from 2.75 to 3.2 billion years old, collected in South Africa and northwestern Australia. These are some of the oldest and best-preserved rocks on the planet. The rocks were formed from sediment deposited on continental margins, so are free of chemical irregularities that would occur near a subsea volcano. They also formed before the atmosphere gained oxygen, roughly 2.3 to 2.4 billion years ago, and so preserve chemical clues that have disappeared in modern rocks.
Even the oldest samples, 3.2 billion years old -- three-quarters of the way back to the birth of the planet -- showed chemical evidence that life was pulling nitrogen out of the air. The ratio of heavier to lighter nitrogen atoms fits the pattern of nitrogen-fixing enzymes contained in single-celled organisms, and does not match any chemical reactions that occur in the absence of life.
"Imagining that this really complicated process is so old, and has operated in the same way for 3.2 billion years, I think is fascinating," said lead author Eva Stüeken, who did the work as part of her UW doctoral research. "It suggests that these really complicated enzymes apparently formed really early, so maybe it's not so difficult for these enzymes to evolve."
Genetic analysis of nitrogen-fixing enzymes have placed their origin at between 1.5 and 2.2 billion years ago.
"This is hard evidence that pushes it back a further billion years," Buick said. Fixing nitrogen means breaking a tenacious triple bond that holds nitrogen atoms in pairs in the atmosphere and joining a single nitrogen to a molecule that is easier for living things to use. The chemical signature of the rocks suggests that nitrogen was being broken by an enzyme based on molybdenum, the most common of the three types of nitrogen-fixing enzymes that exist now. Molybdenum is now abundant because oxygen reacts with rocks to wash it into the ocean, but its source on the ancient Earth -- before the atmosphere contained oxygen to weather rocks -- is more mysterious.
The authors hypothesize that this may be further evidence that some early life may have existed in single-celled layers on land, exhaling small amounts of oxygen that reacted with the rock to release molybdenum to the water.
"We'll never find any direct evidence of land scum one cell thick, but this might be giving us indirect evidence that the land was inhabited," Buick said. "Microbes could have crawled out of the ocean and lived in a slime layer on the rocks on land, even before 3.2 billion years ago."
Future work will look at what else could have limited the growth of life on the early Earth. Stüeken has begun a UW postdoctoral position funded by NASA to look at trace metals such as zinc, copper and cobalt to see if one of them controlled the growth of ancient life.
Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of Washington. The original article was written by Hannah Hickey. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference:
1.Eva E. Stüeken, Roger Buick, Bradley M. Guy, Matthew C. Koehler. Isotopic evidence for biological nitrogen fixation by molybdenum-nitrogenase from 3.2 Gyr. Nature, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nature14180
Cite This Page:
MLA
APA
Chicago
University of Washington. "Ancient rocks show life could have flourished on Earth 3.2 billion years ago." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 16 February 2015. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150216131121.htm>.
Bumping I'll be back
Thanks for the fascinating read Space Critter ;)
I further went and read over the wikipedia article for Nitrogen and found that according to the editor's this is the Crystal Structure of Nitrogen:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Hexagonal.svg/295px-Hexagonal.svg.png)
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen