Posted on 04/25/2002 2:34:20 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts
How did the universe begin, and how will it end? Among cosmologists, the mainstream belief is that the universe began with a bang billions of years ago, and will fizzle out billions of years from now. But two theorists have just fired their latest volley at that belief, saying there could be a timeless cycle of expansion and contraction. It’s an idea as old as Hinduism, updated for the 21st century.
THE “CYCLIC MODEL,” developed by Princeton University’s Paul Steinhardt and Cambridge University’s Neil Turok, made its highest-profile appearance yet Thursday on Science Express, the Web site for the journal Science. But past incarnations of the idea have been hotly debated within the cosmological community for the past year — and Steinhardt acknowledges that he has an uphill battle on his hands.
“It will take people a while to get used to it,” he told MSNBC.com. “This introduces a number of concepts that are quite unfamiliar, even to a cosmologist.”
TINKERING WITH THE COSMOS
Years ago, Steinhardt played a prominent role in formulating what is now the most widely accepted scientific picture of the universe’s beginnings, known as inflationary Big Bang theory: that a vanishingly small quantum fluctuation gave rise in an instant to an inflated region of space-time, kicking off an expansion that is now picking up speed.
The model has weathered repeated experimental tests, including studies of patterns in the microwave “afterglow” of the Big Bang.
“All the competing models were knocked off,” Steinhardt said. “So we had a situation where it looked as if we had converged on a single idea. But I was always disturbed by the idea that there were no competitors around.”
Click here for complete article
First, allow me to correct my earlier response. It turns out that it isn't limited to QM. For each continuous symmetry in nature (wherein the rules of physics are invariant under some transformation) there is a corresponding Conservation Law, and vice-versa.
Spatial translational invariance <=> Conservation of Momentum
Spatial rotational invariance <=> Conservation of Angular Momentum
Temporal invariance <=> Conservation of Energy (and, by extension via Relativity: E=mc2) Matter.
Given the "nature" of nature, logic requires that the symmetries be equivalent to the corresponding Conservation Law. It's based on Noether's Theorem.
A web search will take to sites that can tell you more details that I can.
There are also discrete symmetries in QM that give rise to conservation of various properties.
Hope that helps.
Oh yeah, you need to speak to your evil twin, who posted this:
To: AlGone2001
Actually, your use of the biblical verse, "Let there be light" requires several bangs.
I don't think so. Genesis Chapter 1 verse 3, "And God said Let there be light: and there was light."
Badda bing, badda boom. The Big Bang. The rest of the days that follow don't concern me as far as this discussion is concerned.
118 posted on 4/27/02 1:39 PM Eastern by Bloody Sam Roberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Try again.
Then tell me; what was the light source on day 2 and day 3?
We know that God created our star (the sun), our moon, and the other stars on the fourth day.
We also know that the Lord said, "Let there be light", on the first day.
We know that there was darkness (evening) and light (day) on each of the first three days, although the sun was (by name) created on the fourth day.
Now, if spoke a light into being on the first day, but created the sun on fourth day, I need for you to tell me how the day one "Let there be light" light came back on the second and third day.
On each the first, second and third day there was both darkness and light.
Oh, are you gong to tell me that God's first release of energy was not enough, causing Him to have to also have a bang on day two and three?
I do know that the Lord had a plan. The scripture says that He me made things that are, out of things that aren't.
Tell me, did He explode nothing and have a big bang for each of the first three days?
There must have been three bangs for your theory to make an argument, since hung the sun on the fourth day and there was a period of evening and daylight for each of the first three days.
We know that the first "Let there be light" light ended at the beginning of the second day, as the evening and the day were the first day.
This means that since God created the sun on the fourth day, there was a period of darkness on the second day. But, all of a sudden, light appears on the second day!
What was this light? It was not the sun? Did the "big bang" return!
I understand that you are making an honest effort to understand the Lord, but you are stretching it.
He is the Lord and that qualifies Him to create something simply because He said.
If I can believe that Jesus' grave is empty (a miracle indeed!), I can sure believe that things exist simply because God said so.
Yeah! Wht then did he create the stars on the 4th day?
That's funny. The big bang follows the convention of man. Why are you guilty of placing God in our convention?
He simply said, "Let there be light". If God is God, why do feel the need to make Him fit into the pattern of the big bang "convention"?
He is God and if He says for something to exist, it just does.
Was He insufficient in that He needed to have the same light for three days (between period of darkness)?
And no, as I already pointed out, these were not stars, as they were created on the fourth day.
Aside from that, the notion of an expanding universe, which the big bang idea is based on, is BS, based on nothing more than a discredited interpretaion of redshift data and what casuses it. Halton Arp has blown that away for all not in states of denial.
You tell me.
I have already expressed my belief as to what it was.
Genesis mentions the Sun being created as well as stars and a planet and most likely a moon. Is that all that populates the universe? What about quasi-stellar objects? Quasars. They are not stars nor galaxies yet emit far more energy than a galaxy. What about the Eagle Nebula? Not a star nor a planet yet it emits vast amounts of energy.
And what is light? Does the word 'light' mean to you 'visible light'? How can there be visible light when the first human eyeball had not been created yet? There is all kinds of 'light'.
Again, as I said, we could debate the finer points of Genesis for years and not cover it all. What makes it tiresome is the adversarial attitude you take towards me in your replies. If you wish to discuss these questions, I may indulge you. But not if you insist on maintaining this tone.
It's up to you.
You keep refering to 'your theory' and 'your argument'.
So that we are on the same page, please state for me exactly what I posted that you refer to.
Did I have a brain fart and miss something? I thought I had only stated my belief as to what the Big Bang (if there was such a thing) might have been.
Very true. But the big questions that are discussed here are more easily explained than the small ones (the common cold for example) by applying a scientific method involving mathematics within the parameters of strictly enforced physical laws.
Things like the common cold involve a greater element of randomness and then we get into chaos theory that frankly, makes my head approach critical mass.
More stars.
I don't. The BB fits God's plan.
I don't really expect a scientific answer to these questions since they are not really scientific in nature.
I think you answered your own question, in that in effect you are asking "why are things as they are?"
Science deals with the question of "what" and "how"; philosophy deals with questions like "why?".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.