|
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
 Posted - 05/16/2006 : 08:09:55
|
For the first time in my short sweet life, have come accross a serious inquiry into the universe before the BB... By combining quantum physics with general relativity, Ashtekar and two of his post-doctoral researchers, were able to develop a model that traces back through the Big Bang to a Big Crunch universe that exhibits physics similar to ours ! If this holds up, stand by for many renewed debates on the true nature of our universe. 
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0605/15bigbang/
|
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 05/16/2006 : 08:41:47 [Permalink]
|
| Interesting stuff, though concepts like a universe being "woven by one-dimensional quantum threads" is beyond me... |
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 11:38:13 [Permalink]
|
| Really there is nothing concrete in this, interesting yes, but the Great Fairy who pooped out the universe is still kickin'. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2006 : 17:40:24 [Permalink]
|
There's a classic mistake in there:While the general idea of another universe existing prior to the Big Bang has been proposed before, this is the first mathematical description that systematically establishes its existence and deduces properties of space-time geometry in that universe. They are mistaking the map for the terrain. A mathematical description does not establish the existence of anything. Only reproducible experimental results can do that, and I see nothing in the article which suggests that this new model contains testable predictions amenable to experimentation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2006 : 13:22:21 [Permalink]
|
Well DW, your quote is of the author of the article and not of the researchers directly. Such errors are not uncommon i've found. Agree completely that this enquiry doesn't establish the existence of such a possiblity, only the possibility, itself, and i find it is a new one, myself, apart from just idle speculation based on strange smelling smoke. I just thought it very interesting and noteworthy, sorry if yas found it to be such a yawn...  |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2006 : 19:56:48 [Permalink]
|
Actually, now that you brought up the yawn factor, yes and no.
Ever since the Big Bang was postulated decades ago, there have been two possible "endings" to the universe. If the universe contains enough mass for it to eventually collapse under its own gravity, then it will - in a "Big Crunch" - possibly "igniting" another Big Bang. If the universe doesn't contain that critical amount of mass, then it will expand forever, leading to its "heat death," that point in time when no more usable energy exists.
From what I'd read on the subject, cosmologists had pretty much nailed down the mass to being below the critical amount, and the universe's heat death is predicted to be about 1080 years from the Big Bang.
So, while this research suggests a mathematical basis for a previous "Big Crunch," and so is just giving us math for what's been only a conjecture for the last four/five decades (the "yes, yawn" part), it might also suggest that the previous universe had physics just different enough from ours - if their masses are equal - to have taken a different route than ours appears to. The implication that something in the physics is definitely different between this universe and a possible previous one is very interesting.
Imagine, if you will, an entire "chain" of universes, each rising from the Pheonix-like "ashes" of its predecessor, in a cycle of Big Bangs, inflation, deflation and Big Crunches. This has, of course, been imagined for decades, but with the chain a never-ending cycle in both "directions." In other words, an infinite number of previous universes, then us, followed by an infinite number of successive universes.
What if, though, at the Big Crunch/Quantum Bounce/Big Bang interfaces, a certain amount of mass is inevitably lost? (We'll speculate on possible mechanisms later.) That'd make this universe very special indeed. The previous universe had enough mass to collapse on itself (at least, that's what the "Quantum Bounce" math suggests, but we'll take it as a given here). Ours doesn't. We would be at the end of the chain. Our universe won't end in a Crunch.
Now, since we generally postulate that regular occurences in the physical world don't turn themselves on/off just by happenstance, we might also think that each previous universe had slightly more mass than its "child," just like the one previous to ours had more mass than ours does. This would lead one to think that as we work "backwards" through the chain of universes, we'll find more and more massive universes, lasting less and less time each. The more massive the universe, after all, the less time it'll take to reach the "Big Crunch."
Do we, at some point, encounter a universe at the "beginning" of the chain which is so massive that it lasts almost no time at all? If so, what came "before" that? Just a big ball of undifferentiated mass/energy with such a tremendous G that it couldn't even "explode?"
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
On another note, NubiWan, it's always appropriate to point out glaring errors in alleged "science" reporting. Getting cynical about it won't help fix the problems. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2006 : 11:24:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, while this research suggests a mathematical basis for a previous "Big Crunch," and so is just giving us math for what's been only a conjecture for the last four/five decades (the "yes, yawn" part), it might also suggest that the previous universe had physics just different enough from ours - if their masses are equal - to have taken a different route than ours appears to. The implication that something in the physics is definitely different between this universe and a possible previous one is very interesting.
It was the mathmatical conjecture, i found so interesting "(the yes, yawn" part)." Your own chain of possibillities, is extremely interesting to me, as well, being a simple man. Perhaps not as commanding of the absorbing attention as the "Suface of the Sun" thread, still of true interest to me. There was one other "possible "ending,"" fairly well discounted and discarded, today, though one more favored by creationists, the so called "Steady State" universe.
And there is the school of thought, that would take your uh.., chain of Pheonix like events, and bundle them all into "the Universe," since universe does mean all that there is. It would be the revival of the "Steady State" model, i see being one source of the renewed debate over the true™ nature of our universe.
Actually took away from the article, that such a model suggests the prior crunch, had a physics similar to our own of this current space & time. Being only a simple interested spectator, why might we then think each previous incarnation would have more mass? Thus the 'final word' i cede to you, DW, not wishing to even approach the afore mentioned solar surface thread.., cynically yours.  |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2006 : 20:04:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by NubiWan
Actually took away from the article, that such a model suggests the prior crunch, had a physics similar to our own of this current space & time. Being only a simple interested spectator, why might we then think each previous incarnation would have more mass?
Well, the "final word" will thus be mostly a repeat of what I said above: since our current universe is predicted to end in heat death rather than in a Big Crunch - since there isn't enough mass in it to contract - then there's a big difference between this universe and the hypothesized "previous" one, since it did allegedly end in a Big Crunch. The first thing I thought of was mass, which would mean that the laws of physics in the "previous" universe could have been exactly the same as in this one, just with a different amount of material being acted upon by physical processes. On further thought, the same "observations" could be explained by the "previous" universe having a smaller amount and/or force of "dark energy." Whatever it is, something had to be different because the results will be different. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
