Skip to comments.
Adding Trillions Of Years To The Life Of The Universe
spacedaily.com ^
| 3 May 02
| staff
Posted on 05/03/2002 9:41:32 AM PDT by RightWhale
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-117 next last
To: RightWhale
The brane theory is testable, but the equipment is very expensive and not yet available. How might the brane theory be tested? When would such equipment be available?
The theologically interesting thing of all this, of course, is that it seems to form a plausible many-worlds scenario -- since presumably there would be a relatively infinite variety (perhaps within certain bounds) in the kinds of physical universes that could be produced by colliding branes. Thus, if verified experimentally, it could produce evidence that the universe could have originated without requiring it to be created by an intelligent creator(s). So it joins the Everett version of quantum mechanics in the limited range of plausible many-worlds theories.
To: RightWhale
It certainly makes more sense than previous theories. There is something comforting about the thought that the univers has always been, and is reborn over and over.
To: john in missouri
Steinhardt included a testing mechanism in his theory. It has to do with measuring gravitational blue-shift. With new techniques of data mining being used, such as cointegration, computational subtraction, crystallographic analysis, meta-analysis, it could be just a matter of time until someone gets the right combination. Or perhaps the right data doesn't exist yet and can't exist until we have an interstellar interferometric baseline.
To: wingnuts'nbolts
Yes, it rests easier on the brain. Don't know why, but it does.
To: RightWhale
You're right. Only the density has to really remain withing limits. Funny, I didn't see that before.
45
posted on
05/03/2002 12:56:04 PM PDT
by
techcor
To: det dweller too
Just think, if the above is true, maybe we are just a zit? A zit , if we're lucky. I mean it could be worse.
46
posted on
05/03/2002 12:57:26 PM PDT
by
techcor
To: RightWhale
"With new techniques of data mining being used, such as contegration, computational subtraction, crystallographic analysis, meta-analysis, it could just be a matter of time until someone gets the right combination."Yeah right Spock -- OR we could just sit every primate on planet Earth down at a PC for the next billion years or so and wait for that exact "right combination."
Catch ya at the next Starfleet Command convention...
To: RightWhale
Mankind will always have new 'theories' about how the universe began. The fact is, since no one observed it occuring, it's pretty much guesswork.
48
posted on
05/03/2002 1:04:29 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
To: RightWhale
Steinhardt included a testing mechanism in his theory. It has to do with measuring gravitational blue-shift.Measuring gravitational blue-shift sounds, relatively speaking, like a piece o' cake.
To: RightWhale
Andre Linde of Stanford expressed some of this about fifteen years ago in an article in
Physics Today:
"Eternally Existing, Self-Reproducing, Inflationary Universe".
50
posted on
05/03/2002 1:29:36 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: MEGoody
Though utilizing much of the same educated "guesswork" has yielded our whole technology.
51
posted on
05/03/2002 1:33:51 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: RightWhale
There was an article posted here earlier this week theorizing that black holes were much stranger objects than previously believed, and that furthermore, these objects were solid as opposed to "holes" in space.
It is also theorized that these ultra dense objects have an impossibly dense "shell" whose ability to pull in more matter from the universe at large is balanced by equally forceful internal pressure.
The article also stated that perhaps entire universes existed within black holes.
Might then the occillating of our own universe be the result of outward expansion, followed by collapse which is accompanied by an influx of matter from an external universe?
Who to ask...?
52
posted on
05/03/2002 1:44:02 PM PDT
by
Wm Bach
To: onedoug
Not exactly. The science that has yielded our technology is testable, verifiable - results of experiments can be observed. No one observed the beginning of the universe - it's guesswork pure and simple.
53
posted on
05/03/2002 1:48:21 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
To: billbears
. . . I was wondering if anyone was going to make a Discworld reference . . .
54
posted on
05/03/2002 2:09:12 PM PDT
by
filbert
To: ecomcon
Bad, Bad, Branes
Bad, Bad, Branes Not only that, your brain can't spell brain.
55
posted on
05/03/2002 2:09:56 PM PDT
by
handk
To: onedoug
That's a good idea, the fractal universe. It could be that. The nested gravastar idea is probably along that line. He expresses the budding idea at least as well as does Guth.
To: Wm Bach
That's the gravastar idea. It is akin to the tortoise explanation, at least as far as a hard shell is concerned. Turtles on top of turtles, each turtle bigger than the one above.
To: MEGoody
Uh... Quantum Theory? Electronic/nuclear applications. Pretty good guesses. They work!
58
posted on
05/03/2002 2:14:22 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: RightWhale
. It addresses, for example, the nagging question of what might have triggered or come "before" the beginning of time. No it doesn't. I can't read on.
59
posted on
05/03/2002 2:15:09 PM PDT
by
Yeti
To: MEGoody
since no one observed it occuring, it's pretty much guesswork. Who's to say we aren't looking at it right now and just don't see it?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-117 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson