Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

[George H. Smith]

Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25492/?nlid=3299

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

http://www.technolog...5492/?nlid=3299

Ghs

Shu is not the only one to propose an alternative to the current BB models. Paul Steinhardt and Niel Turok have also propose an alternative theory. In their theory the BB is an intermediate event in a never ending sequence of cosmic creations and disolutions.

See a non-mathematical overview of their hypothesis in "

Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang -- Rewriting Cosmic History.

The Big Bang is not the only model proposed (even the version with the initial expansion). The other models must explain every thing correctly predicted by the current model to be seriously considered. In short, they have to be better theories and not falsified by experiment.

Theories do not disprove theories -- rather they replace them by being better and or more general predictors of verified events and effects. Only contrary experimental evidence or an internal inconsistency disprove a physical theory.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

But Shu's model -the convertibility of time and space - does have an elegant simplicity about it...

[BaalChatzaf]

But Shu's model -the convertibility of time and space - does have an elegant simplicity about it...

It has to be checked out thorough and then a differential experiment must be performed whereby the standard BB does not predict correctly and the Shu model does. Beauty does not count compared to empirical correctness. The figure of merit for a theory is: does it predict correctly. Everything else of of secondary importance.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

But Shu's model -the convertibility of time and space - does have an elegant simplicity about it...

It has to be checked out thorough and then a differential experiment must be performed whereby the standard BB does not predict correctly and the Shu model does. Beauty does not count compared to empirical correctness. The figure of merit for a theory is: does it predict correctly. Everything else of of secondary importance.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al, I'll leave that part up to you.

With all those hypotheses out there, I am pleased as Punch to find one finally that I can get my head around. (And I wrote A-level Physics at college,- and worked for the Atomic Energy Board in R.S.A. for a few years. All gone .)

Go Shu!

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

But Shu's model -the convertibility of time and space - does have an elegant simplicity about it...

It has to be checked out thorough and then a differential experiment must be performed whereby the standard BB does not predict correctly and the Shu model does. Beauty does not count compared to empirical correctness. The figure of merit for a theory is: does it predict correctly. Everything else of of secondary importance.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al, I'll leave that part up to you.

With all those hypotheses out there, I am pleased as Punch to find one finally that I can get my head around. (And I wrote A-level Physics at college,- and worked for the Atomic Energy Board in R.S.A. for a few years. All gone .)

Go Shu!

Tony

Nature is under no obligation to be simple enough for either me or you to understand. What counts is not simplicity, not beauty but empirical correctness. A theory that does not predict well is no good regardless of how beautiful or elegant it is.

And it is very likely that nature is messier than we can possibly imagine or conceive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited August 3, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[anthony]

Ba'al,

well said.

(Just some momentary wishful thinking - I'm back on earth again...)

[DavidMcK]

Thanks George for posting this: I've always wondered why we have books about the first second of the universe and next to nothing was said about the more fascinating question of what was the first second before the Big Bang. We were promised a Big Toe (theory of everything) years ago..a formula we could wear on T-shirts that summed up everything, and maybe we'll finally get it.

[kiaer.ts]

What's needed here is the wider concept of an epistemological event horizon.

Certain facts are simply inaccessible because all knowledge comes at some cost and humans are finite beings. We cannot know in detail now what is happening more than 13 billion lightyears away. because there will not have been enough time for the light to have reached us. We cannot know in detail from the outside what is happening on the inside of a black hole's event horizon, because light cannot escape to tell us. We cannot know in detail what is happening at very small subatomic scales, because of the finite bluntness of our probes. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, no matter how unwarrantedly mystically some interpret it, is simply a recognition of this fact. We cannot know in detail what happened as we approach the singularity of the big bang. We may be able to theorize, but we cannot observe.

The idea that multiple big bangs populate out of prior realities is ultimately bootless. It just posits turtles all the way down.

[GALTGULCH8]

The idea that multiple big bangs populate out of prior realities is ultimately bootless. It just posits turtles all the way down.

I thought the turtle all the way down theory had to do with the god thing.

Also understood that the idea that the big bang was the result of all the galaxies from the prior state of the universe simply coming together from all directions. The problem with that notion was supposed to be that an endless or infinite number of such cycles would be impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Energy would be lost in each cycle as Entropy increased so that ultimately the whole thing would run out of energy and come to rest. It is the same reason why a perpetual motion machine is impossible.

I still don't get how the concept of the Big Bang squares with the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. It is one thing for matter to be converted to energy or vice versa. It is quite another for either matter or energy to spring into existence. No wonder the religionists are complicit in their acceptance of the Big Bang theory. It is merely a creation event as in Genesis. Not saying there was no big bang, just that all the matter and energy of our universe existed in some form prior to the big bang.

Who worries about this stuff? I will take tyranny any day as something to worry about.

[kiaer.ts]

The idea that multiple big bangs populate out of prior realities is ultimately bootless. It just posits turtles all the way down.

I thought the turtle all the way down theory had to do with the god thing.

Also understood that the idea that the big bang was the result of all the galaxies from the prior state of the universe simply coming together from all directions. The problem with that notion was supposed to be that an endless or infinite number of such cycles would be impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Energy would be lost in each cycle as Entropy increased so that ultimately the whole thing would run out of energy and come to rest. It is the same reason why a perpetual motion machine is impossible.

I still don't get how the concept of the Big Bang squares with the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. It is one thing for matter to be converted to energy or vice versa. It is quite another for either matter or energy to spring into existence. No wonder the religionists are complicit in their acceptance of the Big Bang theory. It is merely a creation event as in Genesis. Not saying there was no big bang, just that all the matter and energy of our universe existed in some form prior to the big bang.

Who worries about this stuff? I will take tyranny any day as something to worry about.

You might as well ask Newton the same question. Your first few questions are terribly confused, but in light of the last one I see no point in explaining.

[sbeaulieu]

After what David said, I realized I've never thought of what state of existence existed before the Big Bang theory. Do these newer theories cover some of that? I can't see where something can come from nothing. As long as the known universe has been around, I doubt reverse engineering will be anything we can accurately do in our lifetimes...or for several generations.

Very intersting line of thinking!

~ Shane

[Ellen Stuttle]

I can't see where something can come from nothing.

Big Bang theory doesn't posit something coming from nothing. It posits an expansion the cause(s) of which we don't know from an initial state the nature of which we don't know.

Ellen

PS: Ted, I'm with you in disdaining Gulch's wondering "Who worries about this stuff?" when there's tyranny to worry about. My husband and I have been having a delightful break from tyranny (for short) concerns the last few days while gamboling about together on a cosmology holiday. Not to mention, though I am mentioning, practical pay-offs of cosmological theories -- including major ones in Gulch's own field, medicine. And what of the sheer joy of learning, of seeking answers to questions? Is that of no importance?

Ellen

[Newberry]

Ellen:

My husband and I have been having a delightful break from tyranny (for short) concerns the last few days while gamboling about together on a cosmology holiday.

Sounds spacey...what is a cosmology holiday!!! I can only imagine its going to Mars or an acid trip.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Subject: The "Big Boner"

From the Technology Review article George linked to:

"[to explain] the Big Bang [and] the accelerating expansion of the Universe..cosmologists have been performing some rather worrying contortions with the laws of physics to make their models work. The most commonly discussed idea is that the universe is filled with a dark energy that is forcing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. For this model to work, dark energy must make up 75 per cent of the energy-mass of the Universe and be **increasing at a fantastic rate**. But there is a serious price to pay for this idea: **the law of conservation of energy**. The embarrassing truth is that the world's cosmologists have conveniently swept under the carpet one the of fundamental laws of physics.."

Those are indeed two problems with the BB: the bizarre idea of something no one has any evidence of coming into existence and 'at a fantastic rate' with no cause of -that- made clear. And the discarding of the conservation of energy.

But even worse is the alternative to the BB respectively cited as "fascinating" in the article:

"time and space are not independent entities but can be converted back and forth between each other...the speed of light is simply the conversion factor between the two. Similarly, mass and length are interchangeable in a relationship in which the conversion factor depends on both the gravitational constant G and the speed of light, neither of which need be constant. So as the Universe expands, mass and time are converted to length and space and vice versa as it contracts."

This crazy-as-string-theory idea flagrantly, brazenly violates the actual meaning of the concepts time and space by saying you can "convert" them to each other.

Then, as if that were not enough, this Taiwanese nutjob goes and does the same thing with the actual meaning of mass and length.

(And that's without even talking about the bizarrely arbitrary, evidence-free assertion that G and c "vary" -- just enough to 'save the equations'. NOTE: By comparison, those two ideas are more plausible because not having evidence for either one is better than asserting something which is a direct contradiction of the meaning of concepts.)

,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I -so- wish I could have those neurons back that I wasted reading this asinine, drug-induced, moronic, contemptible, basic-concepts-violating "alternative" in Technology Review.

Almost wants to make me settle for the BB.

What a steaming pile of CRAP!!!!!

!@$%^&*()_+!!!%%%%....

Edited August 4, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Ellen Stuttle]

Sounds spacey...what is a cosmology holiday!!! I can only imagine its going to Mars or an acid trip.

See post #74, post #80, post #84 on the "Physics Question" thread.

We also re-read and re-admired (for the many-eth time) the introductory section of Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (the paper which introduced the theory which came to be called "special relativity") and talked about Maxwell and Faraday, and then Larry dug out a bunch more stuff on Faraday, for whom he feels an especially personal fondness.

A truly delightful change of mind frame from all the battling against the rot spreading in the scientific community these days (with particular focus on the "AGW" leading front) as well as in the humanities.

Ellen

[Newberry]

Sounds spacey...what is a cosmology holiday!!! I can only imagine its going to Mars or an acid trip.

See post #74, post #80, post #84 on the "Physics Question" thread.

We also re-read and re-admired (for the many-eth time) the introductory section of Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (the paper which introduced the theory which came to be called "special relativity") and talked about Maxwell and Faraday, and then Larry dug out a bunch more stuff on Faraday, for whom he feels an especially personal fondness.

Ellen

Sounds like a fun thing to share with a companion. I read the posts, though not beyond my imagination, it's all beyond my knowledge.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

I have engaged on similar Shakespeare holidays, a loved one and I each reading our own copy of Richard II and commenting on the metaphysical meaning and historical presuppositions of the text as we read.

Methinks I am a prophet new inspired

And thus expiring do foretell of him:

His rash fierce blaze of riot cannot last,

For violent fires soon burn out themselves;

Small showers last long, but sudden storms are short;

He tires betimes that spurs too fast betimes;

With eager feeding food doth choke the feeder:

Light vanity, insatiate cormorant,

Consuming means, soon preys upon itself.

This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle,

This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,

This other Eden, demi-paradise,

This fortress built by Nature for herself

Against infection and the hand of war,

This happy breed of men, this little world,

This precious stone set in the silver sea,

Which serves it in the office of a wall,

Or as a moat defensive to a house,

Against the envy of less happier lands,

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,

This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,

Fear'd by their breed and famous by their birth,

Renowned for their deeds as far from home,

For Christian service and true chivalry,

As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry,

Of the world's ransom, blessed Mary's Son,

This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,

Dear for her reputation through the world,

Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,

Like to a tenement or pelting farm:

England, bound in with the triumphant sea

Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege

Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,

With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:

That England, that was wont to conquer others,

Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.

Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life,

How happy then were my ensuing death!

[Newberry]

Shakespeare via Ted's post:

...England, bound in with the triumphant sea

Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege

Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,

With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:

That England, that was wont to conquer others,

Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.

Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life...

Do you think Obama likes Shakespeare?

Nice post Ted.

[Newberry]

Since I live and breath art, I don't think that would be my holiday...and I can't discuss ideas too long as I get impatient to make something. I think my holiday would be discussing cookbooks, maybe pairings with wine, and of course acting on the discussion. And, of course, end with a big bang.

Michael

Edited August 4, 2010 by Newberry

[Newberry]

delete

Edited August 4, 2010 by Newberry

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] And, of course, end with a big bang.

LOL. Yes, of course.

I, too, noticed the appositeness of the Shakespeare quote to current times. (Thanks for posting the quote, Ted. Damn, that guy could write.)

Ellen

[GALTGULCH8]

I can't see where something can come from nothing.

Big Bang theory doesn't posit something coming from nothing. It posits an expansion the cause(s) of which we don't know from an initial state the nature of which we don't know.

Ellen

PS: Ted, I'm with you in disdaining Gulch's wondering "Who worries about this stuff?" when there's tyranny to worry about. My husband and I have been having a delightful break from tyranny (for short) concerns the last few days while gamboling about together on a cosmology holiday. Not to mention, though I am mentioning, practical pay-offs of cosmological theories -- including major ones in Gulch's own field, medicine. And what of the sheer joy of learning, of seeking answers to questions? Is that of no importance?

Ellen

Ellen,

I agree with you entirely! You might be amused to learn that I give long lists of books and authors to patients whom I meet in the correctional setting where I work. Many have long stretches of time to serve and come to realize that one way to keep it from being a complete waste of time is to expand their horizons by reading. I can see where my comment about the tyranny thing might lead one to conclude that is all I am preoccupied with. Admittedly it is a concern especially since I have a child who will have to cope with what is up ahead.

By the way my son and daughter in law were visiting recently. They met in college and work in NYC. She waited until I got home as I do at ten in the evening last Friday. She had a gift for my wife. It was wrapped in a little box with a bow and inside was a fresh lemon upon which was attached two little paper strips with the following words: "About two inches long" and "But not for long."

I knew at once what that meant but my wife was baffled. I suggested it meant that our daughter in law is pregnant! That seemed to be unbelievable because we have been urging them for years and years and had about given up all hope of a grandchild. Turns out to be true and they had the ultrasound pictures to prove it. A little boy due in January. My wife became almost hysterical with joy. Me too.

But of course in addition to my interests in my work each day as well as gardening, home and pool maintenance, investing, economics, philosophy, history, evolution, embryology, paleontology, astronomy, history of science, literature, drama, art, current affairs, foreign affairs, reading, political activism, etcetera, I don't want my grandson nor anyone elses to have to endure totalitarian dictatorship and tyranny.

Cosmology is also a hobby of mine.

I enjoy the chatter here whatever the subject.

[Newberry]

Gulch8,

What a nice and refreshing post.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Shakespeare via Ted's post:

...England, bound in with the triumphant sea

Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege

Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,

With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:

That England, that was wont to conquer others,

Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.

Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life...

Do you think Obama likes Shakespeare?

Nice post Ted.

Yes, after posting this last night I was struck by how exactly relevant this poem is for America today, not conquered from without, but lent out from within. (Historically, John of Gaunt, uncle of (the future King) Henry Bolingbroke, is complaining that the vain and feckless Richard II (who saw himself as "The One") has bankrupted the state to support his reckless spending beyond all means.

Obama is too petulant a fool to play even a villain in any of Shakespeare's plays.

Richard II starring Fiona Shaw as the King is perhaps my favoriote of Shakespearean adaptations. They show it on Ovation every once in a while, If you have access to that channel. I cannot find it for rent or sale otherwise.