Ali & Das, 2015 wrote:Abstract

It was shown recently that replacing classical geodesics with quantal (Bohmian) trajectories gives rise to a quantum corrected Raychaudhuri equation (QRE). In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe.

chairman bill wrote:Bugger. That means I'll be dead for more than 13.5 billion years. In fact, I'll be dead forever.

Thanks for ruining my day.

DavidMcC wrote:The idea that the universe is a stand-alone object (created by a huge quantum fluctuation), rather than the result of a massive object in a greater universe could be the real problem. Ie, the article is addressing the wrong question. See my cosmology, in the LQG thread, PP6-7.

jamest wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:The idea that the universe is a stand-alone object (created by a huge quantum fluctuation), rather than the result of a massive object in a greater universe could be the real problem. Ie, the article is addressing the wrong question. See my cosmology, in the LQG thread, PP6-7.

The same set of How/When questions applied to our universe would merely be exported to this bigger universe, so the issues remain the same.

DavidMcC wrote:

jamest wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:The idea that the universe is a stand-alone object (created by a huge quantum fluctuation), rather than the result of a massive object in a greater universe could be the real problem. Ie, the article is addressing the wrong question. See my cosmology, in the LQG thread, PP6-7.

The same set of How/When questions applied to our universe would merely be exported to this bigger universe, so the issues remain the same.

Yes and no. You are right in the sense that I have moved one of the main problems back a stage, and that is why I proposed that the bigger universe was created by "the law of quantum gravity, acting on the hyperspace continuum". As such, it is an atheist alternative to god. Also, various other problems with the one-off universe are solved, such as the asymmetries of the laws of physics in this universe, and the existence of life, as a highly improbable thing in a one-off universe.

jamest wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

jamest wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:The idea that the universe is a stand-alone object (created by a huge quantum fluctuation), rather than the result of a massive object in a greater universe could be the real problem. Ie, the article is addressing the wrong question. See my cosmology, in the LQG thread, PP6-7.

The same set of How/When questions applied to our universe would merely be exported to this bigger universe, so the issues remain the same.

Yes and no. You are right in the sense that I have moved one of the main problems back a stage, and that is why I proposed that the bigger universe was created by "the law of quantum gravity, acting on the hyperspace continuum". As such, it is an atheist alternative to god. Also, various other problems with the one-off universe are solved, such as the asymmetries of the laws of physics in this universe, and the existence of life, as a highly improbable thing in a one-off universe.

Where did you propose this? I missed it. Please provide a link.

Actually, you've already mentioned where you've stated this, but a direct link would be useful.