Proof of Super-Advanced Aliens Manipulating Space-Time?!

[MarkBC]

Possibly...
Hubble photo recently leaked from NASA vaults:

NASA is mum on the subject of alien origin...but then, they would be.

 

[PaulT]

The origin of Smiley Face has been a long time concern. It spreads by replication across email, texts, forum posts, etc. Please don't contribute to its ultimate takeover of our world. Rumor has it that there may even a fast food vendor that has been compromised.

Paul

 

[highz]

The prefix "SDSS" in the galaxy cluster identifier means one of the bright galaxies was first identified in the project I worked on. I went to the SDSS Sky Server and put in the coordinates to look at the original image. It's not very impressive as seen by the ground-based medium-sized SDSS telescope. It needed the Hubble to show the strong gravitational lens arcs. Smiley-face, indeed. How many other emojis are out there?

 

[MarkBC]

highz, I noticed the Sloan connection -- your facility.

The gravitation lensing is the coolest thing about this -- real space-time warping!

Smiley-face, indeed. How many other emojis are out there?

I think we should just focus on those cosmic phenomena that send a positive message.

 

[MarkBC]

"No Big Bang?

Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning" Phys.org

Oh great...now what?!

 

[highz]

OK, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Phys Letters B article. It's a cool idea, deriving a Friedmann equation from the quantum-trajectry-modified Raychauduri equation. The thing is, quantum trajectories are non-local, and it seems to imply having a wave function for the whole Universe. Non-locality combined with relativity leads to causal paradoxes - such as, how can our laws of physics now know the state of the Universe outside the observable limit determined by the speed of light? I know I'm blathering, and I can't say I understand what they've done beyond the basics. I am now waiting for someone in the field to raise the non-locality issue, so I can learn more.

 

[MarkBC]

OK, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Phys Letters B article....I can't say I understand what they've done beyond the basics...

Well, I bet you're way ahead of most of us in understanding -- more than me, anyway.
Two years of college physics including one term of quantum (circa 1977), and reading the popular physics books of Sean Carroll, Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking ain't enough to judge quantum cosmology.

When I read the headline -- "No Big Bang" (actually a "trending" item in Facebook), I was afraid that maybe "they" were now thinking that Fred Hoyle (and the Steady State universe) was right after all.

 

[Smokecreek1]

Wow, highz and MakBC , this conversation is way over my prehistoric mind set ! I liked the star smile picture thooo-It was even on national news last night ., but you guys must be right, anyway I always liked the big bang theory especially now that it may have a smile on it ! Time to go and lay down and rest my mind and talk to the dog.

Smoke

 

[highz]

I should mention that the Phys B letter does not imply there was no Big Bang - just that there was no singularity. The cosmic microwave background and Hubble Law are all still safe.

 

[MarkBC]

I should mention that the Phys B letter does not imply there was no Big Bang - just that there was no singularity. The cosmic microwave background and Hubble Law are all still safe.

Whew! That's good to know! I'm too old to want to rethink the origin of the Universe!

Now if, before I die, if I can just hear and understand what "dark matter" and "dark energy" really are I'll die happy...

 

[ski3pin]

Whew! That's good to know! I'm too old to want to rethink the origin of the Universe!

Now if, before I die, if I can just hear and understand what "dark matter" and "dark energy" really are I'll die happy...

x2!