Image of the Day: Milky Way's Core Source of Monster Energy Outflows
"Magnetic Fields of the Universe Preceeded Stars" --New Discovery

"The Universe Began With a 'Big Chill' --Not Big Bang" (2012 Most Popular)




The start of the Universe should be modeled not as a Big Bang but more like water freezing into ice, according to a team of theoretical physicists at the University of Melbourne and RMIT University that could our revolutionized our understanding of the nature of the Universe. The key, they propose, is to be found in the cracks and crevices common to all crystals.

"Albert Einstein assumed that space and time were continuous and flowed smoothly, but we now believe that this assumption may not be valid at very small scales," said Project lead researcher James Q. Quach, of the University of Melbourne school of physics. “A new theory, known as quantum graphity, suggests that space may be made up of indivisible building blocks, like tiny atoms. These indivisible blocks can be thought about as similar to pixels that make up an image on a screen. The challenge has been that these building blocks of space are very small, and so impossible to see directly.”

“Think of the early universe as being like a liquid,” Quach added. “Then as the universe cools, it ‘crystallizes’ into the three spatial and one time dimension that we see today. Theorized this way, as the Universe cools, we would expect that cracks should form, similar to the way cracks are formed when water freezes into ice.”

RMIT University research team member Associate Professor Andrew Greentree said some of these defects might be visible. “Light and other particles would bend or reflect off such defects, and therefore in theory we should be able to detect these effects."

These structures should have observable background-independent consequences, including scattering, double imaging, and gravitational lensing-like effects, the scientists wrote in their paper. The team has calculated some of these effects and if their predictions are experimentally verified, the question as to whether space is smooth or constructed out of tiny indivisible parts will be solved once and for all.

The Daily Galaxy via, and Physical Review

James Quach, Chun-Hsu Su, Andrew Martin, Andrew Greentree, Domain structures in quantum graphity, Physical Review D, 2012, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.044001 James Quach, Chun-Hsu Su, Andrew Martin, Andrew Greentree, Domain structures in quantum graphity,

Posted at 09:30 AM in Actors | Permalink


Something is wrong with the current assumpsions. It is js getting too complicated and bizzzare.

I believe that, when we get right down to these "indivisible" blocks, we will find that they are, in fact, comprised of yet smaller "blocks", and so on, ad infinitum. Currently accepted "laws" of physics and theories of how the universe works are patently flawed, and we need to rethink our theories from the ground up, starting without assumptions based on inventions such as Gravity (an illusion) and Constantly Flowing Time (it is quantum). I have set out one alternative interpretation of our universe in "The Situation of Gravity" and there are many other philosophers who are coming round to this point of view. Although we "feel" gravity, and "perceive" gravity, we also "feel" and "perceive" that the Earth is flat, but it isn't. The hoped-for discovery of the particle that confers gravity (like the electron does electric charge, or the photon does light) is still ongoing with the LHC at CERN, as the much-heralded Higgs Boson does not confer "gravity" as theorised. I will take any wager that no such gravity-conferring particle will be found (lets say by 2015 for the purposes of the wager). Please apply the usual scientific tests to the theory of gravity and ask yourself whether or not it passes them - and don't forget that the "attraction" between two "masses" is an effect, not a proof of existence, it no more infers the existence of gravity than it does other theories e.g. the expansion theory in my book.

@RegMundy, "I believe that, when we get right down to these "indivisible" blocks, we will find that they are, in fact, comprised of yet smaller "blocks", and so on, ad infinitum"
u r wrong, right of the bat. all subatomic particals r made of quarks(different type) and they r just blimps of energy that do not live long, if seprated. so no "ad infinitum" thr.

"we need to rethink our theories from the ground up"
No we dont..!! we do not to keep improving on them though but the evidence suggests the current model is quite fine. it has take us the space and we've built grt technologies based on that (ex planes, rockets, tv, computers..u name it).

"there are many other philosophers who are coming round"
so now "philosophers" are gonna determine future of science. u can take ur philosophy in shove it up ur behind, we need good sceintists working on science projects and thoeries not shallow philosophers.

"Gravity (an illusion) " really. Gravity is an illusion and we wont find graviton?? u might as well publish ur papers based upon ur assertion and try and see if u can win a nobel prize or atleast get a paper published in decent science publication. WILL NEVER HAPPEN. you are clearly a nutjob, who's just assirting things based on his flawed understanding of scientific thoeries.

and btw, this theory that they have mentioned in this article has not been published anywhr else, thr has not been any peer review done, any evidence provided etc.. so no need to get too excited. its just, like some many other "theories" out their, a speculation. unless they provide some evidence.

Thank you for your kind comments, it's encouraging to see you have considered the matter. I would point out that for many years illustrious scientists believed the atom was the smallest indivisible particle (the word "atom" in Greek meant "indivisible"), but later "philosophers" proved them wrong. Meanwhile, could I suggest that you invest in a spellchecker for your computer, or even an old-fashioned dictionary if you don't know what a spellchecker is. It might stop people thinking you are illiterate.

Well, isn't this more along the line of cold and dense equals hot and thin? Scientists have been working in this area and I think it will be used eventually to explain our universe not as a big bang but as a 'bubble-up' - 'shrink-down' kind of event. During G Gammow's heyday, there was an astronomy man and wife team who proposed this kind of universe description. True to modern science this theory is given a brief shrift in Wiki and escapes description in the modern web.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)