100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: evidence a universe existed before the Big Bang. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Eddie Wrenn Daily Mail Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:26 CDT A renowned scientist says he has spotted evidence that a universe existed before the Big Bang. Professor Roger Penrose from Oxford University says concentric circles discovered in the background microwaves of the universe provides evidence of events that took place before the universe came into being. The cosmic microwave offers us a ghostly look at the the universe just 300,000 years after the Big Bang' - a microscopic amount of time compared to the universe's estimated age of 13.7billion years. The research by Penrose, who was awarded the 1988 Wolf Prize along with Stephen Hawkings for adding to our cosmic knowledge, adds evidence to the theory that the universe has expanded ('the Big Bang') and contracted ('the Big Crunch') many times. A map of the cosmic background radiation (CMB) in the universe with circles which may signify events that took place before the Big Bang The cosmic radiation background (CMB) is believed to have cooled to a temperature of -270C in the near 14 billion years since the birth of the universe. Stars and galaxies started to form around 300 million years later. Our Sun was born around five billion years ago, and life first appeared on the Earth around 3.7 billion years ago. The Daily Galaxy reports that Prof Penrose, along with Professor Vahe Gurzadyan of the Yerevan State University, Armenia believe images of the CMB from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotophy Probe shows imprints in the radiation that are older than the Big Bang. They say they have discovered 12 examples of concentric circles, some of which have five rings - which means the same object has had five massive events in its history.  background cosmic radiation © Press Association The rings appear around galaxy clusters in which the variation in the background radiation appears to be strangely low.  Clues in the mist: Microwave radiation from the whole sky, captured by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite The research appears to cast aside the widely-held 'inflationary' theory of the origins of the universe, that it began with the Big Bang, and will continue to expand until a point in the future, when it will end. They believe the circles are imprints of extremely violent gravitational radiation waves generated by supermassive black hole collisions in a previous aeon before the last big bang. They say that this means that this means that the universe cycles through aeons dominated by big bangs and supermassive black hole collisions. Professor Penrose believes that his new theory of 'conformal cyclic cosmology' means that black holes will eventually consume all the matter in the universe. According to his theory, when they have finished, all that will be left in the universe will be energy - which will then trigger the next Big Bang - and the new aeon. Professor Penrose told the BBC: 'In the scheme that I'm proposing, you have an exponential expansion but it's not in our aeon - I use the term to describe [the period] from our Big Bang until the remote future. 'I claim that this aeon is one of a succession of such things, where the remote future of the previous aeons somehow becomes the Big Bang of our aeon.' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will have to find it, but there is a lot of good criticism for this study. The method used does not rule out some very mundane causes was the gist I got from the criticisms.
Hmmm, which set of physics blogs was that on now . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 06/14/12 02:34 PM
|
|
That assumes that the "big bang" happened and was "the beginning" of the universe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the big crunch theory where the universe continues to expand and retract,then theres the big bang.The Planck Satellite is suppose to prove one of the theories correct and maybe actualy record a gravity wave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spiritualists will describe something more akin to the expanding and contracting idea. They always have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Theres one astronomer who was studying a shot of the CMB and saw what might appear to be patches of other galaxies from another universe which is the multiverse theory and she believes the CMB to be from matter of this universe colliding with matter from another universe.Slim chance but we'll see what the planck shows.I'm kind of excited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That assumes that the "big bang" happened and was "the beginning" of the universe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That assumes that the "big bang" happened and was "the beginning" of the universe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Theres one astronomer who was studying a shot of the CMB and saw what might appear to be patches of other galaxies from another universe which is the multiverse theory and she believes the CMB to be from matter of this universe colliding with matter from another universe.Slim chance but we'll see what the planck shows.I'm kind of excited. Does this astronomer have a name? What is her definition of "universe"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That assumes that the "big bang" happened and was "the beginning" of the universe. The Big Bang and the beginning of the universe are separate topics. Here is an excerpt from the website How Stuff Works: Although the big bang theory is famous, it's also widely misunderstood. A common misperception about the theory is that it describes the origin of the universe. That's not quite right. The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe. ( Quote Source ) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Thu 06/14/12 06:47 PM
|
|
Theres one astronomer who was studying a shot of the CMB and saw what might appear to be patches of other galaxies from another universe which is the multiverse theory and she believes the CMB to be from matter of this universe colliding with matter from another universe.Slim chance but we'll see what the planck shows.I'm kind of excited. Does this astronomer have a name? What is her definition of "universe"?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Theres one astronomer who was studying a shot of the CMB and saw what might appear to be patches of other galaxies from another universe which is the multiverse theory and she believes the CMB to be from matter of this universe colliding with matter from another universe.Slim chance but we'll see what the planck shows.I'm kind of excited. Does this astronomer have a name? What is her definition of "universe"? The Wikipedia entry about string theory say, ". . . finding a way to experimentally verify string theory via unique predictions remains a major challenge." If string theory (or any of Randall's theories) cannot be tested to see if it is falsifiable, then what good is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Theres one astronomer who was studying a shot of the CMB and saw what might appear to be patches of other galaxies from another universe which is the multiverse theory and she believes the CMB to be from matter of this universe colliding with matter from another universe.Slim chance but we'll see what the planck shows.I'm kind of excited. Does this astronomer have a name? What is her definition of "universe"? The Wikipedia entry about string theory say, ". . . finding a way to experimentally verify string theory via unique predictions remains a major challenge." If string theory (or any of Randall's theories) cannot be tested to see if it is falsifiable, then what good is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 06/15/12 07:27 AM
|
|
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3734
Cycles of Time Penrose is well known for fringe speculation. If something like this pans out it would be world shattering, but that is the same with most of his ideas, he loves extraordinary ideas . . . sadly they usually have a lot of problems to overcome, so far he is striking out. Posted on May 27, 2011 by woit Today’s Wall Street Journal has a review I wrote of Sir Roger Penrose’s new book Cycles of Time. The review is aimed at a much wider audience than this blog, and is the product of substantial editing to get its length down and make it as readable as possible for as many people as possible, so here are some supplementary remarks. I should make it clear that I’m not at all convinced by what Penrose is proposing. He needs the distant future of the universe to be conformally invariant, and this requires all particles to be massless. As far as we know the electron is completely stable, with unchanging mass, and this will always ruin conformal invariance. Penrose himself notes the problem. For this to be overcome, whatever our ultimate understanding is of how particles get mass must change so that these masses go to zero in the future. It’s also seems to me that the conformal anomaly of QCD will always be a problem, with quantization and the renormalization group always breaking conformal invariance and giving a mass scale, indefinitely far into the future. The other main problem is the one shared by most “pre-big-bang” ideas: how do you ever test them? Penrose and a collaborator last year created a stir by claiming to see in the CMB patterns of the sort he argues might be expected from black hole decays late in an era before the Big Bang, but it’s not clear there’s a real prediction here, and others who have redone this analysis say they see nothing. Attempts to get a Big Bang in our future as well as our past generally strike me as motivated by a very human desire to see in the global structure of the universe the same cyclic pattern of death and rebirth that govern human existence. To me though, deeper understanding of the universe leads to unexpected structures, fascinating precisely because of how alien they are to human concerns and experience. Just because we might find a cold, empty universe an unappealing future doesn’t mean that that’s not where things are headed. The book is in many ways an unusual document. It includes an extensive appendix working out some of the details of the mathematics of his proposal. In some sense he has managed to get a trade publisher to put out a highly technical discussion of a speculative idea inside the covers of a popular book, instead of going the usual route of publishing this in a refereed journal. The only references I can find to other places where he has written some of this up are to chapters in this book and this one, as well as this contribution to a conference proceeding. The technical idea behind this, that the hypothesis of the vanishing of the Weyl curvature in the early universe leads to possible cosmological models that can be extended past the Big Bang singularity he attributes to this paper of K.P. Tod. There’s a nice recent exposition of this by Tod here. So, I’m not convinced by the speculation about the far future, and for an evaluation of the ideas about extending back through the big bang singularity you’ll need someone more expert about cosmology than me. These topics are very clearly labeled in the book as speculative, without support from other physicists or any experimental evidence. The bulk of the book though is other material providing a background and context for the speculation, and it is this which I think makes it most valuable as a popular book. Penrose is a wonderful, elegant and clear writer, and he covers a lot of ground about physics beautifully here. Most remarkable are the illustrations, by far the best visual representations of a range of important ideas that I know of. Physicists and mathematicians work with lots of internal pictures in their minds representing important aspects of the concepts they are investigating, but very rarely do they have the technical skill to grasp some of the essence of these pictures and get them down on paper. Even more rarely do they make it into wide distribution in print, so I’m glad to see that happen here. I have not looked very hard, but somewhere out there is some fairly good criticisms of the research paper linked in the OP, basically that they failed to rule out the concentric circles being caused by some other mundane source that would be within the universe or caused by inflation. Cant remember its been a while. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That assumes that the "big bang" happened and was "the beginning" of the universe. i don't know, infinite is forever, and i can't see anything being forever...once we get out into deeper space, maybe we will find out more, as we are so limited on what we can learn from our currant location. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3734 Cycles of Time Penrose is well known for fringe speculation. If something like this pans out it would be world shattering, but that is the same with most of his ideas, he loves extraordinary ideas . . . sadly they usually have a lot of problems to overcome, so far he is striking out. Posted on May 27, 2011 by woit Today’s Wall Street Journal has a review I wrote of Sir Roger Penrose’s new book Cycles of Time. The review is aimed at a much wider audience than this blog, and is the product of substantial editing to get its length down and make it as readable as possible for as many people as possible, so here are some supplementary remarks. I should make it clear that I’m not at all convinced by what Penrose is proposing. He needs the distant future of the universe to be conformally invariant, and this requires all particles to be massless. As far as we know the electron is completely stable, with unchanging mass, and this will always ruin conformal invariance. Penrose himself notes the problem. For this to be overcome, whatever our ultimate understanding is of how particles get mass must change so that these masses go to zero in the future. It’s also seems to me that the conformal anomaly of QCD will always be a problem, with quantization and the renormalization group always breaking conformal invariance and giving a mass scale, indefinitely far into the future. The other main problem is the one shared by most “pre-big-bang” ideas: how do you ever test them? Penrose and a collaborator last year created a stir by claiming to see in the CMB patterns of the sort he argues might be expected from black hole decays late in an era before the Big Bang, but it’s not clear there’s a real prediction here, and others who have redone this analysis say they see nothing. Attempts to get a Big Bang in our future as well as our past generally strike me as motivated by a very human desire to see in the global structure of the universe the same cyclic pattern of death and rebirth that govern human existence. To me though, deeper understanding of the universe leads to unexpected structures, fascinating precisely because of how alien they are to human concerns and experience. Just because we might find a cold, empty universe an unappealing future doesn’t mean that that’s not where things are headed. The book is in many ways an unusual document. It includes an extensive appendix working out some of the details of the mathematics of his proposal. In some sense he has managed to get a trade publisher to put out a highly technical discussion of a speculative idea inside the covers of a popular book, instead of going the usual route of publishing this in a refereed journal. The only references I can find to other places where he has written some of this up are to chapters in this book and this one, as well as this contribution to a conference proceeding. The technical idea behind this, that the hypothesis of the vanishing of the Weyl curvature in the early universe leads to possible cosmological models that can be extended past the Big Bang singularity he attributes to this paper of K.P. Tod. There’s a nice recent exposition of this by Tod here. So, I’m not convinced by the speculation about the far future, and for an evaluation of the ideas about extending back through the big bang singularity you’ll need someone more expert about cosmology than me. These topics are very clearly labeled in the book as speculative, without support from other physicists or any experimental evidence. The bulk of the book though is other material providing a background and context for the speculation, and it is this which I think makes it most valuable as a popular book. Penrose is a wonderful, elegant and clear writer, and he covers a lot of ground about physics beautifully here. Most remarkable are the illustrations, by far the best visual representations of a range of important ideas that I know of. Physicists and mathematicians work with lots of internal pictures in their minds representing important aspects of the concepts they are investigating, but very rarely do they have the technical skill to grasp some of the essence of these pictures and get them down on paper. Even more rarely do they make it into wide distribution in print, so I’m glad to see that happen here. I have not looked very hard, but somewhere out there is some fairly good criticisms of the research paper linked in the OP, basically that they failed to rule out the concentric circles being caused by some other mundane source that would be within the universe or caused by inflation. Cant remember its been a while. it's just like any other theory, one person "maps" it out, and others check that work and decide whether to agree with it or not. Since i have never really liked the big bang theory, and don't know the math to even try to disprove it, i rely on smarter people to try to figure it out. penrose has had the same ideas that i have thought of, so i like to read about his studies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3734 Cycles of Time Penrose is well known for fringe speculation. If something like this pans out it would be world shattering, but that is the same with most of his ideas, he loves extraordinary ideas . . . sadly they usually have a lot of problems to overcome, so far he is striking out. Posted on May 27, 2011 by woit Today’s Wall Street Journal has a review I wrote of Sir Roger Penrose’s new book Cycles of Time. The review is aimed at a much wider audience than this blog, and is the product of substantial editing to get its length down and make it as readable as possible for as many people as possible, so here are some supplementary remarks. I should make it clear that I’m not at all convinced by what Penrose is proposing. He needs the distant future of the universe to be conformally invariant, and this requires all particles to be massless. As far as we know the electron is completely stable, with unchanging mass, and this will always ruin conformal invariance. Penrose himself notes the problem. For this to be overcome, whatever our ultimate understanding is of how particles get mass must change so that these masses go to zero in the future. It’s also seems to me that the conformal anomaly of QCD will always be a problem, with quantization and the renormalization group always breaking conformal invariance and giving a mass scale, indefinitely far into the future. The other main problem is the one shared by most “pre-big-bang” ideas: how do you ever test them? Penrose and a collaborator last year created a stir by claiming to see in the CMB patterns of the sort he argues might be expected from black hole decays late in an era before the Big Bang, but it’s not clear there’s a real prediction here, and others who have redone this analysis say they see nothing. Attempts to get a Big Bang in our future as well as our past generally strike me as motivated by a very human desire to see in the global structure of the universe the same cyclic pattern of death and rebirth that govern human existence. To me though, deeper understanding of the universe leads to unexpected structures, fascinating precisely because of how alien they are to human concerns and experience. Just because we might find a cold, empty universe an unappealing future doesn’t mean that that’s not where things are headed. The book is in many ways an unusual document. It includes an extensive appendix working out some of the details of the mathematics of his proposal. In some sense he has managed to get a trade publisher to put out a highly technical discussion of a speculative idea inside the covers of a popular book, instead of going the usual route of publishing this in a refereed journal. The only references I can find to other places where he has written some of this up are to chapters in this book and this one, as well as this contribution to a conference proceeding. The technical idea behind this, that the hypothesis of the vanishing of the Weyl curvature in the early universe leads to possible cosmological models that can be extended past the Big Bang singularity he attributes to this paper of K.P. Tod. There’s a nice recent exposition of this by Tod here. So, I’m not convinced by the speculation about the far future, and for an evaluation of the ideas about extending back through the big bang singularity you’ll need someone more expert about cosmology than me. These topics are very clearly labeled in the book as speculative, without support from other physicists or any experimental evidence. The bulk of the book though is other material providing a background and context for the speculation, and it is this which I think makes it most valuable as a popular book. Penrose is a wonderful, elegant and clear writer, and he covers a lot of ground about physics beautifully here. Most remarkable are the illustrations, by far the best visual representations of a range of important ideas that I know of. Physicists and mathematicians work with lots of internal pictures in their minds representing important aspects of the concepts they are investigating, but very rarely do they have the technical skill to grasp some of the essence of these pictures and get them down on paper. Even more rarely do they make it into wide distribution in print, so I’m glad to see that happen here. I have not looked very hard, but somewhere out there is some fairly good criticisms of the research paper linked in the OP, basically that they failed to rule out the concentric circles being caused by some other mundane source that would be within the universe or caused by inflation. Cant remember its been a while. it's just like any other theory, one person "maps" it out, and others check that work and decide whether to agree with it or not. Since i have never really liked the big bang theory, and don't know the math to even try to disprove it, i rely on smarter people to try to figure it out. penrose has had the same ideas that i have thought of, so i like to read about his studies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attempts to get a Big Bang in our future as well as our past generally strike me as motivated by a very human desire to see in the global structure of the universe the same cyclic pattern of death and rebirth that govern human existence. To me though, deeper understanding of the universe leads to unexpected structures, fascinating precisely because of how alien they are to human concerns and experience. Just because we might find a cold, empty universe an unappealing future doesn’t mean that that’s not where things are headed. I get the impression that some cosmologists have already decided what must be true and, thus, they see evidence for whatever they have already concluded, although other cosmologists do not see the same evidence. In other words, their conclusion was pre-determined. These cosmologists still have to come up with a way to test their theories to see if they are falsifiable. If I recall correctly, the Big Bang Theory was not univerally accepted until someone made a prediction using the theory. What was predicted was discovered, and, thus, the Big Bang Theory gained credibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Sat 06/16/12 08:37 AM
|
|
Penrose is well known for fringe speculation. If something like this pans out it would be world shattering, but that is the same with most of his ideas, he loves extraordinary ideas . . . sadly they usually have a lot of problems to overcome, so far he is striking out.
I have not looked very hard, but somewhere out there is some fairly good criticisms of the research paper linked in the OP, basically that they failed to rule out the concentric circles being caused by some other mundane source that would be within the universe or caused by inflation. Cant remember its been a while. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Yep i agree with this people forget that Penrose and Hawkings removed quantum mechanics when they came up with the "singularity theorem".In other words if you remove quantum mechanics then their theorem is possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Penrose is well known for fringe speculation. If something like this pans out it would be world shattering, but that is the same with most of his ideas, he loves extraordinary ideas . . . sadly they usually have a lot of problems to overcome, so far he is striking out. I have not looked very hard, but somewhere out there is some fairly good criticisms of the research paper linked in the OP, basically that they failed to rule out the concentric circles being caused by some other mundane source that would be within the universe or caused by inflation. Cant remember its been a while. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Yep i agree with this people forget that Penrose and Hawkings removed quantum mechanics when they came up with the "singularity theorem".In other words if you remove quantum mechanics then their theorem is possible. i don't know, they both know a little more about it than i do...but the Big Bang Theory seems really outdated now... maybe they are the only ones looking for evidence against the BBT, while most of the others are not thinking about it... |
|
|
|
|
