Bohm stated the following to Peat and Briggs at his interview published in 1987 in Omni -check http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.htm
“…I propose something like this: Imagine an infinite sea of energy filling empty space, with waves moving around in there, occasionally coming together and producing an intense pulse. Let's say one particular pulse comes together and expands, creating our universe of space-time and matter. But there could well be other such pulses. To us, that pulse looks like a big bang; In a greater context, it's a little ripple. Everything emerges by unfoldment from the holomovement, then enfolds back into the implicate order. I call the enfolding process "implicating," and the unfolding "explicating." The implicate and explicate together are a flowing, undivided wholeness. Every part of the universe is related to every other part but in different degrees.”
Cool and deep!
And now, 23 years after, we have Gurzadyan and Penrose claiming that concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity!
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44388
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706v1
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf
😵
Originally posted by black beetleIt kind of reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant, you know that story? Penrose may have some evidence in the way of anomalies in the cosmic map but that does not by itself kill 50 years of inflation theory. First thing, is to prove what he seems to think he sees is not just a statistical fluke, which could certainly be possible, and the second thing, if he proves that, the connection to a previous BB cycle.
Bohm stated the following to Peat and Briggs at his interview published in 1987 in Omni -check http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.htm
“…I propose something like this: Imagine an infinite sea of energy filling empty space, with waves moving around in there, occasionally coming together and producing an intense pulse. Let's say one particular pu ...[text shortened]... ://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706v1
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf
😵
Personally I have never been satisfied with Alan Guth's model, even though I got to talk to him personally, for one thing it could not have been some kind of infinite density and a lot of present work has gone into transforming that initial infinite into something more reasonable like the idea of universes begetting universes ala their black hole becomes our universe, implying a very large maybe infinite number of other bigger and smaller universes, universes being born as we speak from black holes in our universe.
All that would have to be prefaced with the concept of other dimensions to allow such a scenario to work. The more you think about the origins of the universe the more you have to think there are other dimensions. If not, then we are pretty much stuck with WYSIWYG kind of thing.
Originally posted by sonhouseI fully agree; indeed, both Gurzadyan and Penrose are arguing very carefully. Just check their thesis at the last page of their paper:
It kind of reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephant, you know that story? Penrose may have some evidence in the way of anomalies in the cosmic map but that does not by itself kill 50 years of inflation theory. First thing, is to prove what he seems to think he sees is not just a statistical fluke, which could certainly be possible, and the ...[text shortened]... k there are other dimensions. If not, then we are pretty much stuck with WYSIWYG kind of thing.
“Geometrical considerations tell us that in view of the large angular radii of some of the circles that are seen (often with α up to around 15-20° for the third or fourth circles), the events which could be source of some of the largest of these circles would have to have occurred no later than around t = -1/3 which would be well before the final stages of the inflationary phase of any inflationary model (although well within the later stages of our previous aeon, in accordance with CCC). It will be seen, therefore, that this picture provides a serious problem for inflationary cosmology, assuming that our events are not in some unforeseen way spurious.”
I do like Bohm’s illustration, which in turn it is based amongst else on a specific metaphysic thesis known in the East as “ocean of the multi-universes” and it includes the concept of other dimensions, but for the time being I will stay with the BB theory
😵
Originally posted by Shallow BlueKing of the bongo, Feynman.
Hmmm... let's start with Feynman. Whatever else will happen, at least it will be fun.
Richard
Maybe the process works in reverse: which physicists do the following musical styles describe most accurately: Kraftwerk; Schoenberg; Ravi Shankar; Sun Ra; Ultravox?