|
New evidence found that may show previous universes (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Darkarbiter
Think about that again |
:stongue: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | | time itself may not have existed yet. |
So time didn't exist at that time? Great explanation, dip. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| so wait......the universe has TWO rings????? |
|
|
| yukii |
:stongue: :stongue:
I've actually already heard of this theory :conf: I mean, doesn't Hawkings refer to the collapse of the universe as 'the big crunch' or something like that? So, I heard somehting about the universe being like a heart-beat, starting (big bang) growing & then collapsing (the big crunch) all over again...
:wtf: |
|
|
| Lira |
Now, that doesn't really count as "evidence" just yet, does it?
Still, I swear I heard some Hindus cheering on my way here... someone please remind them that it doesn't mean there's an elephant on top of a tortoise holding the world. |
|
|
| david.michael |
| Is this thread about Star Trek? This sounds like Star Trek. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by david.michael
Is this thread about Star Trek? This sounds like Star Trek. |
Nope, it's about interstellar onion rings. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Hope, it's about interstellar onion rings. |
I'd rather compare it to stretch marks of a pregnant woman. |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
I'd rather compare it to stretch marks of a pregnant woman. |
I just got a boner. |
|
|
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by yukii
:stongue: :stongue:
I've actually already heard of this theory :conf: I mean, doesn't Hawkings refer to the collapse of the universe as 'the big crunch' or something like that? So, I heard somehting about the universe being like a heart-beat, starting (big bang) growing & then collapsing (the big crunch) all over again...
:wtf: |
Yeah, that's what it's commonly known as and one possible outcome of the universe, the others being the 'Big Freeze' and the 'Big Rip'.
I can't remember what the current measurements are, but I'm sure we're currently floating around the critical density (which I find fascinating in itself), but we'll never really know what's going to happen until we learn more about Dark Energy and what the hell it's going to do in the future. But I personally believe in cyclicality. |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kenny Rogers
can someone sum up all that text? is the universe beating like a heart is that what its about? that image reminded me more of some Buddhist artwork. |
c0r version: The universe is continually created and destroyed by the Borg using a dilithium crystal chamber. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Acton
There are multiple pre Big Bang theories, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is merely one of them, so you're inevitably going to get many Physicists arguing against it.
Same with most theories, really. |
Yeah but the trouble is that the current model explains the data so well that a competing theory (especially one like this that would turn our understanding of cosmology on its head) is going to have to have a lot of strong evidence in its favour to be taken seriously. From the second article I posted it seems like Penrose is basing his conclusions on a single set of anomolous data from the CMBR (that cosmologists were already familiar with) and some pretty creative inferences. Physicists aren't just arguing against it because they want to protect their own idiosyncratic cosmological theories, they're arguing against it because it represents a serious departure from an established model that has a staggering weight of evidence in its favour and which would require a much stronger case than the one Penrose is presenting to see it overturned.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
always good to have you aboard renegade!
i was gonna ask (with my numpty cosmology hat on) how there would be tell-tale signs of a previous universe's existence, given that everything in it was sucked back into something akin to a big crunch? wouldn't radiation be subject to the same gravitational pull that has contracted the entire universe to a single point of infinite density, therefore leaving no such evidence behind?
of course i haven't done science since 1994 :tongue2 |
Well I don't claim to understand it either, but I think he's trying to say that the geometry of the CMBR is more consistent with the idea that our universe was caused by a series of massive events in some previous universe (namely the collision of supermassive black-holes) than the idea that our universe emerged from one, single event that perhaps had no precursor. Obviously I'm not even remotely qualified to enter into this debate, but Penrose's quirkiness and the fact that this paper was submitted without peer-review leads me to be quietly skeptical. |
|
|
|
|
