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
Niburu (or Planet X) Explained
Imbecile!. Planet X is obviously named in Roman numerals. It is planet number ten! I was speaking of the mysterious and unnamable Planet Eight.
Now there's a line worth stealing.
Maybe I'll be able to work it into conversation next time I have to take Mrs ASA Vet to temple.
That's a question for the religious among us. Ask a Christian what he thinks of native American creation myths, and why.
2. Why is it that some people will laugh at all religious creation myths while at the same time they consider the big bang theory to be scientifically proven truth?
But as this article shows, not even the people who came up with the leading big bang model consider it to be the proven truth. These are models, only models...but as models, they are in exquisite agreement with the known facts, whereas other models--including religious creation myths--are in stark disagreement with the known facts. That really does give them a greater claim on the truth.
Is there really any difference in God speaking the universe into existence and a quantam fluctuation that continues forever or whatever the theory is?
Yes. One is to some extent calculable and testable, and one is not.
I don't pretend to understand the big bang theory, it just sounds like so much gibberish to me. I sometimes wonder if the people with the doctorate in physics understand it any better than I do or are they just spouting mumbo jumbo like some witch doctor so that they can make the villagers think they know something.
So you don't understand the math, you are unwilling or unable to make the effort to understand it (which isn't a criticism; few people are in a position to do it), and you don't trust the people who do. In that case, there's nothing anybody can say that can in principle change your position.
Part of the trust issue falls on the shoulders of the scientists. Scientists have not done an adequate job of communicating and interpreting the fruits of their research to the lay public. Most of the time and effort I spend on FreeRepublic has been to correct that, as far as I can and to the best of my ability. But I can't do it alone; you have to meet me part of the way. You can't just sit there and say, "I don't understand it, so I guess nobody does."
So if you have any questions, fire away, and I'll answer them as best I can.
How do you "test" another universe?
**Not if space-time was created at the big bang.
How is that logically necessary?
In fact, my understanding of the Big Bang model is that by definition, it means that space-time violently expanded from a primordial singularity.
So you're basically saying that if there was a Big Bang, it wasn't caused.
How do we know that?
I don't believe we do, scientifically, nor do we know that it was caused... scientifically.
Now it might have been a gravastar.
How do we know that?
You're missing the point. If there was a big bang, it doesn't mathematically require a cause, whether or not it in fact had one. The question "what happened before the big bang" or "what caused the big bang" is not a question that requires an answer, and the big bang cannot be logically refuted on any such grounds.
The question "what happened before the big bang" or "what caused the big bang" is not a question that requires an answer, and the big bang cannot be logically refuted on any such grounds.Actually, that was half of my point...
Acausation is also not mathematically required, no?
True and true... scientifically.Whatever there is/was (or isn't/wasn't) beyond that primordial singularity is outside the realm of science. And that's no knock on science.
Because you start out with something.
No and neither does God. Mathematics and logic do not address cause and effect.
There's no need to go there. If inflationary cosmology is correct, then the universe is (and always has been) at its own black hole density, meaning that the universe still is that primordial black hole. We've never escaped it and never will.
Sure they do. Any time-dependent expression does so explicitly.
Why not just nothing?
That's just because we need more funding. We'll find a way out, just get the taxpayers to shell out some more loot.
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.