Replies

I haven't read much about this theory you posted here, but Alan Guth has a concept (not a full-blown theory) of how the Big Bang can fit into a sort of a steady-state picture, something along the lines of big-bangs popping up independently of each other at random "times" and "places" (have to use those words loosely, just to convey the image) and that there is a distinction between the word "universe" which is what is contained in a single big-bang (everything we can currently see with our eyes and radio-ears) and the "cosmos", a some sort of pre-space-time fabric in which the bigbangs bubble up out of once in a while. Like I said, it's just a concept he has, not a full-blown theory, but one I'm sort of partial to myself.

It breaks down like this: all the laws of physics we know and love were created at the moment of our particular bigbang and apply only within it. "Elsewhere" there are different bigbangs with different physics-laws and different probabilities of coalescing galaxies and evolution of heavier molecules (and all that heavier molecules imply).

The thing I like about Guths concept is that it eliminates the coefficient problem: why are certain coefficients just the right value for star-formation and star-longevity, when other coefficients are just as "likely"? The multi-bigbang concept (a form of weak anthropomorphism) says that all the other values happen, in other bigbangs. We got a good combo here, so we're here to talk about it. In other bigbang universes, maybe stars only burn for a thousand years or so before burning out... or maybe never form at all. So those coefficients "never" get measured. (Have to use time references loosely, just to illustrate the concept.)

Anyway, I'm a sysadmin, not an astrophyscist and I feel free to pick and choose these concepts as I see fit.

"....I haven't read much about this theory you posted here...."

The STEADY STATE theory is an old one and not much discussed anymore. The modern equivalent would be the quantum appearance of a particle and anti-particle in our 'Universe' (bubbling up from no where), except on a Universe-scale. The philosophical meaning, of course, is that there was/is no DISTINCT and SINGLE point of Creation.

"....Alan Guth has a concept...."

I would disagree with this (JMHO)..........
1) If Universe's are bubbling up all the time into this one then, just as we see eccentric galaxies forming with the Hubble Telescope 10 Billion years ago, we would also see (from a distance) areas of the sky where this is/has happening(-ed). We don't.
2) I just can't rationalize different sets of constants occupying the same space/time. It makes no physical and intuitive sense to me whatsoever. To analogize: I CAN rationalize a random throwing of the dice over and over (Hindu version) but NOT the throwing of an infinite number of dice all at the same time and place.

(BTW, I'm a Molecular Biologist, NOT a Physicist {LOL})

Lastly, from my Post #9....................

"...I wonder how many of..."
See Post #7 {LOL}.

MMMM. Assuming an "infinite" set of universes when the known set is 1 might be a slight abuse of probablity theory. Is there a way to test Guth's concept?

If not, I prefer the other, equally hard to test concept that the values are perfect because the universe has an Intelligent Designer who meant for us to be here.