1 edit
I am only minimally knowledgeable about quantum physics, but one line in a story about the recent discovery of "smoking gun evidence" supporting the Big Bang Theory caught my attention:
"The acclaimed theoretical physicist [Stephen Hawking] told BBC ... that the discovery proves his theory of 'inflation' in the early universe, and shows Professor Neil Turok, another space expert, is wrong in his belief that there are a series of Big Bangs in a cyclic universe."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/stephen-hawking/10704797/Stephen-Hawking-claims-victory-in-Big-Bang-bet.html
What are the implications of this? Physically/metaphysically, can we thus conclude that the universe necessarily had a "beginning," as it were?
2 edits
Originally posted by wittywonkaHawking would probably say no. From what I've read of Hawking (if I recall correctly), he proposes that our universe's one dimension of time and three dimensions of space "blend together" as we "go back" toward the Big Bang, so that there is no beginning to the universe as such (i.e. no time t=0). It's a dimensional issue, easily expressed with mathematics but difficult to describe in words (consider the Klein bottle or hypersphere). But in essence there is no dimension of time at the "instant" of the Big Bang, or so Hawking speculates, thus rendering talk of the "beginning" of the universe as meaningless as talk of the "beginning" of a circle.
What are the implications of this? Physically/metaphysically, can we thus conclude that the universe necessarily had a "beginning," as it were?
Originally posted by SoothfastSo would he say that time "approaches" zero, so to speak, as we "go back"? I'm imagining in mathematical terms, highly oversimplified example though it may be, a ray that extends from time t=0 but is undefined at time t=0.
Hawking would probably say no. From what I've read of Hawking (if I recall correctly), he proposes that our universe's one dimension of time and three dimensions of space "blend together" as we "go back" toward the Big Bang, so that there is no beginning to the universe as such (i.e. no time t=0). It's a dimensional issue, easily expressed with mathemati ...[text shortened]... g talk of the "beginning" of the universe as meaningless as talk of the "beginning" of a circle.
Originally posted by wittywonkaIn the multi-universe theory our T=zero is only the setting of a local clock, local in this case meaning the time that started our clock in our universe.
So would he say that time "approaches" zero, so to speak, as we "go back"? I'm imagining in mathematical terms, highly oversimplified example though it may be, a ray that extends from time t=0 but is undefined at time t=0.
In that theory there could be an infinite number of other clocks starting at times before our universe started and times after our universe undergoes it's final destiny whatever that will turn out to be.
Originally posted by sonhouse(Please forgive my almost certain misuse of terminology here, but...)
In the multi-universe theory our T=zero is only the setting of a local clock, local in this case meaning the time that started our clock in our universe.
In that theory there could be an infinite number of other clocks starting at times before our universe started and times after our universe undergoes it's final destiny whatever that will turn out to be.
Then is there support for a theoretical "Bigger Bang" from which all other possible universes started?
6 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasSeriously though, the multiverse almost certainly exists! That's because there is a multiverse theory that has already been proven correct and it would be extremely difficult to explain the proof if there is no multiverse! The theory was made by a woman scientist and the theory made three predictions that no other cosmological model makes and can explain and all three have all been empirically confirmed to be totally correct!
... I don't believe in a Multiverse. I belive in the Universe, that's plenty enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Mersini-Houghton
I find it is a complete mystery why the current now debunked standard model isn't rejected by most cosmologists for this new model that surely should become the new standard model to try to knock down! The fact that it hasn't replaced the current standard model despite being proven is shameful as this is not how science is supposed to work but is the exact opposite of how science is supposed to work! Science is supposed to go wherever the evidence points else it is not science!
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact this theory was was made by a woman? -that isn't a joke! there is good evidence that prejudice against females is common EVEN, shamefully, in the scientific community!
Anyone: -Any alternative theories on why?
Originally posted by sonhouse"This, they say, is exactly what you’d expect if the universe were eternally cyclical. By that, they mean that each cycle ends with a big bang that starts the next cycle."
Take a look at this recent discovery:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/421999/astronomers-find-first-evidence-of-other-universes/
If this is not another universe or two banging into ours early on, how can you explain this evidence?
Well, what do we mean here...? A cyclic universe that restarts again and again? Does that really mean that there are several universes living at the same time, a multiverse?
His findings is not without criticism. And I think this is healthy. I see the rings as a symptom of non-perfect numerical method algorithms. But what would I know about that...
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell I am sure it will be refuted or accepted in another decade or so of careful analysis of the data.
"This, they say, is exactly what you’d expect if the universe were eternally cyclical. By that, they mean that each cycle ends with a big bang that starts the next cycle."
Well, what do we mean here...? A cyclic universe that restarts again and again? Does that really mean that there are several universes living at the same time, a multiverse?
His f ...[text shortened]... ngs as a symptom of non-perfect numerical method algorithms. But what would I know about that...
Originally posted by sonhouseWikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology) this:
Well I am sure it will be refuted or accepted in another decade or so of careful analysis of the data.
In 2010, Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan published a preprint of a paper claiming that observations of the cosmic microwave background ... showed concentric anomalies which were consistent with the CCC hypothesis, with a low probability of the null hypothesis that the observations in question were caused by chance."
... and follows with this important fact ...
"However, the statistical significance of the claimed detection has since been questioned. Three groups have independently attempted to reproduce these results, but found that the detection of the concentric anomalies was not statistically significant, in the sense that such circles would appear in a proper Gaussian simulation of the anisotropy in the CMB data."
So I would say that the numerical method introduces errors which show as concentric rings. We cannot draw any conclusions before we can rule out any misinterpretations of the result.
Another case with similar history is the 'discovery' that neutrinos move at a speed slightly above that of light. It showed that it was errors in the methods.
Do I need to mention cold fusion in the same posting?
Let's wait and see further development in the concentric ring mystery, and not draw any conclusions regarding multitude of universes, yet.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYeah, news at 11🙂
Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology) this:
In 2010, Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan published a preprint of a paper claiming that observations of the cosmic microwave background ... showed concentric anomalies which were consistent with the CCC hypothesis, with a low probability of the null hypothesis that the observations ...[text shortened]... the concentric ring mystery, and not draw any conclusions regarding multitude of universes, yet.