"Origin of the Universe Riddle Solved- and,er, It Wasn't God" Claim Canadian Physicists

A Group of researchers have made what may turn out to be the most significant discovery in HISTORY – how the cosmos came into being from nothing. The immense question has concerned religions, philosophers and researchers since the dawn of time but now a Canadian group of scientists consider that they have finally solved this riddle. And the results are so convincing they even challenge the need for religion, or in any case an omnipotent creator – the foundation of all world religions. A group of scientists led by Prof Mir Faizal, at the Dept of Physics and Astronomy, at the University Of Waterloo, Canada, has positively applied the theory to the very creation of existence itself. 

The Inflation theory: Astounding growth in nano seconds

Prof Mir Faizal: 


“Virtual particles contain a very small amount of energy and exist for a very small amount of time. However what was difficult to explain was how did such a small amount of energy give rise to a big universe like ours?”

Prof Mir used some mind-bending mathematics and two current theories:
• The Minimum Length Scale – a size so infinitesimally small that space and time cease to exist.

• Doubly Special Relativity – which takes advantage of the massive energies available just after the birth of the universe.

Under Inflation Theory the minute energies and lifetime of the virtual particle become infinitely magnified, finally resulting in our 13.8 Billion-year-old universe. Just to make things more complex Dr Mir says we have been trying to answer the question ‘how did the universe come from nothing?’ all wrong. According to the astonishing findings, the question is irrelevant as the universe STILL is nothing. 


Dr Mir Faizal said: 

“Something did not come from nothing. The universe still is nothing, it’s just more elegantly ordered nothing.” 

He also added that the negative gravitational energy of the cosmos and the positive matter energy of the cosmos essentially balanced out and generated a zero sum.

When asked if the amazing findings and the convincing if complex solution disinterested the need for a God figure to kick start the cosmos Dr Mir said: 


“If by God you mean a supernatural super man who breaks his own laws then yes he’s done for, you just don’t need him. But if you mean God as a great mathematician, then yes!”

What Prof. Mir was talking about to is known as inflation. According to inflation the entire positive energy in the form of matter precisely balances the negative energy in form of gravity, such that the whole energy of our universe is still zero.

Prof. Mir - who has also been working on the Large Hardron Collider at CERN in Switzerland - further clarified that by "nothing" he only intended absence of energy, and not the absence of laws of physics.

Read the complete story at: Express.co.uk
This post was written by Umer Abrar. To contact the author of this post, write to mirzavadoodulbaig@gmail.com or add/follow him on facebook :

"Origin of the Universe Riddle Solved- and,er, It Wasn't God" Claim Canadian Physicists "Origin of the Universe Riddle Solved- and,er, It Wasn't God" Claim Canadian Physicists Reviewed by Umer Abrar on 10/18/2015 Rating: 5

13 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. this idea has often been in qurious mind like us but I want a direct evidence and explanations for varied colours of our universe. why is it just 13.8 billion years ago it all has to start?

    ReplyDelete
  3. this idea has often been in qurious mind like us but I want a direct evidence and explanations for varied colours of our universe. why is it just 13.8 billion years ago it all has to start?

    ReplyDelete
  4. infinitesimal particles? from where this is all theory is biased .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The article . doesn't say. But it is just a theory. And we'll have many more before the decade is through. Maybe they are bits of matter left over and sent through black holes that connect two universes. And the real answer to how the original universe formed can't be found in ours.

      Delete
    2. "But it is just a theory."

      Google the word 'theory.' Look at the definitions. It doesn't mean what you think it does, in this context.

      Laypeople use the word 'theory' the way scientists use the word 'hypothesis.' An idea, thought, even guess, for which one seeks evidence to support or refute.

      In science, a 'theory' is the body of results you get,and c conclusions drawn, *from* the results of experimental and observational tests.

      Thus, 'theory' of Relativity, gravitation, quantum theory, evolution, etc. And all theories are subject to revision, in the face of new evidence. And sometimes even a radically new theory is called for, but it still must explain that which we *do* know, as well as new evidence that the old theory does not. Or (as it does so), it must *predict* something new and inconsistent with the old theory, for which evidence can be sought.

      But it's never dismissively 'just a theory.'

      Delete


  5. Blogger Joe Hinman said...
    "Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse. But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles."i

    Gordon Kane, “Are Virtual Particles Really Constantly Popping In and Out of existence? Or Are They Merely a Mathematical Bookkeeping Device For Quantum Mechanics?” Scientific American, (Oct. 9, 2006) on line version URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ accessed 10/12/15
    Kane is director of the Michigan center for theoretical physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

    Thus it's only said that they are coming from nothing because there's a new combination of particles that only exists for a short time. Yet they are actually coming from other particles. In thinking about thye great oceanic questions that launch religion, why we are here and where it all comes from quantum theory is not the best explanation, it doesn't even touch the major issues. God not only provides an ultimate sources but is also a more elegant solution because one simple idea furnishes both the explanation of origins but also ties up morality and everything else into one neat solution.

    ReplyDelete
  6. who created the creator is a nonsense statement. Creator is final cause, that's meaning of the term. creator = final cause/ infinite causal regression is impossible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just because you give meaning to the word creator as final cause doesnt mean its not illogical and special pleading fallacy. So yes, question who created creator is right once you say that everything has to have a cause.

      Delete
  7. This infinitesimally small particle is The Entity, which is a mathematical absurdity.

    In 1985 I wrote: "The space neither the time were and it was the BEING in the Nature a cosmic singularity, to the power of 0, mathematically, (1)°=1, joined by empathy, whose auto-perception generated the NOUS.

    The unitary continuity simultaneously allowed the formation of space and time, exploding when reaching the square of its ninth unit, repeating itself successively; mathematically (111,111,111) ² =12345678987654321, generating therefore the principle of Creation and Destruction, Eros and Thánatos, Jehovah and satán. (The word satan -lowercase-, in Hebrew, means adversary. It is not the name of a supernatural evil force).".

    See http://net-tronics.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Deborah ash ... I might be a fool here to try to explain this to the so immensely brainwashed but I invite you to read this article again as your comments you've been posting have been completely ignoring what this has said ... there's no need for a creator as there is nothing that needed to be created ... I assume u passed 3rd grade so exude me if im wrong but I'm trying to bring this down to your level ... if you have a bucket u have a big 0 in u have no numeric value in that buket... but if u have a 3 and a -3 u also have no numeric value in the bucket altho u have in essance something ... those somethings add up to nothing ... and the total numeric value in the bucket is nothing... this article is saying we are living on the 3 with the essance of -3 all around us canceling everything out ... essentially meaning there is nothing that has been created ... just a different format of nothing as 3+(-3) is just as 0 as 0 is...


    Now in regards to the well who created the particle .. it didn't have to be created as it is just menipulated. .m and even if it was created ... arbitrarily making something up to have done the creating isn't the answer tho I know it apeases your human need to want to know ... purely making up an answer is not knowing as much as it is fooling (yoursel) which is y I called you brainwashed in the beginning ... I hope I tied up all loose ends and gave reasons for my seemingly agrees I've comments feel free to reply only if you have something constructive and logically based to further the debate if you rebut with a falicious argument as you've done to others do not expect a reply as I gave you a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The biggest problem I always see in these science vs religion "debates" is what I call a violation of boundary conditions. It's not quite that in a mathematical sense, but it's descriptive. Science uses one set of rules for judging the truth about existence (evidence); religion uses another (faith). Using evidence to disprove religion is a violation of the boundaries of science. Using faith to disprove science is a violation of boundaries of religion. Similarly, trying to prove religious truths through scientific means is another violation of faith and completely unnecessary (and impossible).

    To put it another way, science and faith are orthogonal. They have one point of contact -- existence -- but movement in one direction is completely independent of movement in the other. And that is true of any system of "truth" ... we have all sorts of ways of knowing the world and they are all orthogonal to each other.

    ReplyDelete

Template images by sololos. Powered by Blogger.