What theory of the universe do you belive?

[LSHAFC2004]

What theory of the universe do any of you have? A theist one, a deist one, a atheist one, a materillist one, a idealist one, are there parell universes or just one universe alone. Do we live in space-time or are we in an atemporal universe? What do you all think. (Me personally belives in materilism on the borders of deism) :)

[Agnostic Theist]

Agnostic theism. Never put much thoguht into the universe, per se though. Big Bang's all I got taught, but now that seems to be flawed and quite frankly I can't make head nor tail of the other (valid) theories.

[mirage]

Most of the atheist infidels here are sort of materialist atheists. Metaphysical naturalism is perhaps a better term that's in favour here.

Personally, I don't see any evidence for multiple universes, i.e. spacetime structures in relation to our own, e.g. joined at the Big bang or through black hole singularities. We just don't know, but there is no reason to rule them out. If a nice theory comes along that predicts them, then we might as well assume them to exist.

As to other spacetime structures in no relation to our own, the question is almost meaningless. There is no final outer container for universes to "exist" in, their existence is an internal thing. There is no conceivable constraint on the number of ways something like a universe could "exists". It is simply beyond the bounds of conception. This is why the "brute fact of existence" or "why is there something and not nothing" can never be explained. It is also why Fine tuning arguments for god are miss-the-point nonsense.

[Alf]

What theory of the universe do any of you have? A theist one, a deist one, a atheist one, a materillist one, a idealist one, are there parell universes or just one universe alone. Do we live in space-time or are we in an atemporal universe? What do you all think. (Me personally belives in materilism on the borders of deism) :)

The universe is everything there is. X exist implies X exist within the universe.

Nothing exist outside of the universe - in particular a God who supposedly created the universe is quite impossible. It would require this God to be outside of time and how he could manage to do something such as creating the universe while he was outside of time is quite incomprehensible - i.e. impossible.

It is also quite unecessary, since all points in time is within the universe the term "always" can only refer to points in time within the universe and so the claim "the universe has always existed" is true even if "always" refer to a finite period of time (time since big bang).

Since the universe has always been there and this is necessarily true, the universe doesn't need a creator - nor allows for one.

There may be other universes but if so they are unreachable from our universe - all points in space and time refer to a point in our universe and so there are no points in space or tme that can refer to where any other universe is. Thus, any other universe must be "not there" wherever you look since you only can look in this universe and never look beyond it. Thus, in this universe there is only one universe and possible other universes are unreachable and therefore ultimately uninteresting. They literally do not exist since they do not exist in our universe and so discussing the possibility or impossibility of them doesn't provide us with any useful insight.

In particular a god belief based on bronze age goat herder's mythology makes no sense whatsoever. That there are people in 2005 who believe in those myths is - although understandable given the history - completely undefensible, the sooner they leave those myths the better it is.

If there is a deity it is certainly not a creator of the universe, nor can it be omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent. or perfectly just. It also cannot predict the future and know for certain what a given dice roll will give unless it somehow temporarily moved the dices itself and caused a specific roll itself - i.e. cheating. A regular plain roll is impossible to predict for this deity as well as for man.

Given that such a deity if it exist is so limited, and we know absolutely nothing about it and we know absolutely nothing about why we should bother to waste our lives worshipping this possible deity I believe any rational person will opt to disregard this possibility until such time that any evidence of it turned up.

Alf

[Ojuice5001]

My theory of the universe has idealistic tendencies; I hold that the things we see are a kind of emanation of ideas, especially mathematical ideas and the will of the gods. I am also a polytheist, believing in guiding intelligences and that multiplicity is the order of things. I believe that we live in space-time. I'm interested, LASHFC2004, what do you mean by an "atemporal" universe?

[worm]

i think the universe has always existed in some way.

it just keeps inflating and deflating the whole time, creating a new timeline everytime the next big bang (inflation) occurs. the course of history is therefor different everytime, because the short period of time right after the big bang is unpredictable and can result into anything, sometimes creating a universe with life-friendly conditions and sometimes with an opposite outcome. we happen to exist in one where the conditions are just right. and the cycle goes on and on.

although i don't live by it, cos it could virtually be anything. and it doesn't explain how the universe came into existence at all. but it's just an interesting theory to me.

i don't know if such a theory already exists.

come to think of it, it resembles something like what hawking was talking about in 'a brief histroy of time' about the no boundary universe or the self-sufficient universe.

hmm, i might look deeper into this.

[fast]

What theory of the universe do any of you have? A theist one, a deist one, a atheist one, a materillist one, a idealist one, are there parell universes or just one universe alone. Do we live in space-time or are we in an atemporal universe? What do you all think. (Me personally belives in materilism on the borders of deism) :)

Universe- the aggregate of all existing things; something extensive, as in a field of thought or activity.

Well my 'theory' is unkownst to even me, but I figure it would depend on how we define "existing things".

I'm not in accordance with a deist or a theist way of thinking. As for the other terms--not quite sure.

If Universe is to be understood as "all encompassing" then, there is no "outside of the universe";

However, if there is "space" void of "things", then I would imagine that at some point in travelling outward, we would eventually come to point where we would encounter the "last thing". What's beyond that--I can only imagine as further "space" void of "things".

PS, does this view reflect a "label". Is it metapysical naturalism? I aint know!

fast

[Gawen]

Since this has nothing to do with exsistance of God/s, and everything to do with exsistance of 'universe', regardless of belief, I'm moving this thread to S/S.

[alnilam]

by Timothy Ferris I found to be an excellect book for the layman on the state of the universe(s).

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684810204/internetinfidels/

For myself, I'm still trying to figure it out, but I guess I'm a BB'er. :)

Clear skies !

Alnilam

[LSHAFC2004]

An atemporal universe is a universe without time. Only space. Obviously we can derive a sense of time from motion. But if there was no motion at all, how could we measure time, if there was no clock or anybody aware to measure it? :banghead: bit bizare but makes you think.

[Schneibster]

Simple enough.

[Stinger]

What theory of the universe do any of you have? A theist one, a deist one, a atheist one, a materillist one, a idealist one, are there parell universes or just one universe alone. Do we live in space-time or are we in an atemporal universe? What do you all think. (Me personally belives in materilism on the borders of deism) :)

What is a theist theory? A theory requires explanatory evidence. So what is the explanatory evidence for any theist theory on Origins? What is the "flaw" in the Big Bang? There are flaws in most scientific theories. At least 99.5% of the evidence points towards the Big Bang. The so-called flaws in Big Bang are so small that they aren't worth mentioning outside of professional astronomers. Our understanding of the theory will be slightly tweaked over the years. But do not buy into the hype that the theory is flawed!!

[Rhaedas]

I haven't (re)researched the theory as of late, but my last delving into cosmology (reading The Big Bang Never Happened, and following up with critics of its idea), I "liked" plasma cosmology a lot. Doesn't make it more or less valid, but the overall simplicity and results I've read about give a much clearer picture in my mind of the "what if" scenario we're stuck with when it comes to the early days of the universe (if there were early days at all, and it hasn't just "evolved").

There are critics with good points, but all theories have critics, as well as proponents.

[jonesg]

What theory of the universe do any of you have? A theist one, a deist one, a atheist one, a materillist one, a idealist one, are there parell universes or just one universe alone. Do we live in space-time or are we in an atemporal universe? What do you all think. (Me personally belives in materilism on the borders of deism) :)


It seems we have a universe which expands and there might very well be some hidden dimensions. It sounds like the spiritual ideas have been correct but had no way to prove it.
That which we see here is produced by something elsewhere which we cannot find. I thin Paul said something about that in the bible.
Maybe he was into quantum physics.

[premjan]

Is there any theory which explains why a big bang needs to occur (in terms of the dynamics from one moment to the next?)

[Stinger]

I haven't (re)researched the theory as of late, but my last delving into cosmology (reading The Big Bang Never Happened, and following up with critics of its idea), I "liked" plasma cosmology a lot. Doesn't make it more or less valid, but the overall simplicity and results I've read about give a much clearer picture in my mind of the "what if" scenario we're stuck with when it comes to the early days of the universe (if there were early days at all, and it hasn't just "evolved").

There are critics with good points, but all theories have critics, as well as proponents.

If you want to believe in Plasma theory all that you have to do is throw out such evidences such as red shift of galaxies, abundance of light metals, Einstein theory of gravity, blackbody, microwave background radiation, distribution of matter across the universe, inverse square' law, and on and on. Its actually pretty sad. Why don't we just throw out all theories based on science and evidence in favor of theories that make us feel good? Here's a hint: your theory has been forwarded by a small bunch of guys who find that the Big Bang conflicts with their views that the Universe is Infinite and that it has no beginning. There is no evidence for it. None. Its simply a thought exercise that would create the possibility of the Steady State universe. Your theory has no more credence than "creationism".

[|2eason]

If you want to believe in Plasma theory all that you have to do is throw out such evidences such as red shift of galaxies, abundance of light metals, Einstein theory of gravity, blackbody, microwave background radiation, distribution of matter across the universe, inverse square' law, and on and on. Its actually pretty sad. Why don't we just throw out all theories based on science and evidence in favor of theories that make us feel good? Here's a hint: your theory has been forwarded by a small bunch of guys who find that the Big Bang conflicts with their views that the Universe is Infinite and that it has no beginning. There is no evidence for it. None. Its simply a thought exercise that would create the possibility of the Steady State universe. Your theory has no more credence than "creationism".

I think you go too far in asserting that bigbang theory has the answers. Whilst plasma theory and other alternatives may seem a little left field, there is evidence out there that we can't ignore and that lead us to think twice. For instance:-
-Evidence that galaxies don't rotate as GTR says they should, leading to speculations about Dark matter.
-Evidence that shows the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, leading to the nessecity of dark energy if the standard description of redshift is correct. This in itself isn't so bad, but the very strange properties and distrubtions of dark energy make it a big leap to make.
-Evidence that galaxies at incredibly high redshifts are fully formed and have high concentrations of heavy elements. Totally contradicting BB theory.
-Evidence that quasars with vastly different redshifts appear to be interacting with each other gravitionally.
-A recent discovery of very young galaxies that are very close to us, suggesting that galaxy formation is happening now.

Of course, none of these are enough to flat out scrap BB theory, but I think there is enough evidence to suggest we are not 100% on the ball. So in light of this, dismissing alternative theories out of hand is a dangerous thing to do. Science shouldn't be so dogmatic.

[Anglican]

2season, the problem is out of your list only none of your points are seen in the field as real problems for big bang theory (for example most believe that the evidence for your fourth point is nothing more than statistical anomalies), there are problems, however the evdience for big bang theory is so much greater than for any of the othe rtheories.

[Cojana]

I used to picture the Big Bang as a black ball with a lite fuse anticipating random explosion, I now see the black ball injected with pins,and a hand lighting the fuse,with anticipation of a disciplined controlled explosion,!!

[Sven]

First, please note that Lerner, the main proponent of "plasma cosmology" has been shown to be a (highly educated) crackpot (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=92965), using the same dishonest tactics as creationists, e.g., quoting out of context.

I think you go too far in asserting that bigbang theory has the answers. Whilst plasma theory and other alternatives may seem a little left field, there is evidence out there that we can't ignore and that lead us to think twice. For instance:-
-Evidence that galaxies don't rotate as GTR says they should, leading to speculations about Dark matter.
Speculations about dark matter already started in the 1930's. And dark matter seems to explain lots of other problems in cosmology, too. So I don't see a problem here. And in about the year 2010, particle accelerators will be large enough to produce some of the candidates for dark matter. Let's wait and see.
I'm also not sure why you say that GTR made these predictions, standard Newtonian mechanics should be sufficient.

-Evidence that shows the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, leading to the nessecity of dark energy if the standard description of redshift is correct. This in itself isn't so bad, but the very strange properties and distrubtions of dark energy make it a big leap to make.
As far as I know, the accelerating expansion isn't the only evidence for dark energy.

-Evidence that galaxies at incredibly high redshifts are fully formed and have high concentrations of heavy elements. Totally contradicting BB theory.
Got any evidence for this? The only thing I heard is that these galaxies are more mature than expected - indicating that our theories of galaxy formation are wrong, not (necessarily) the Big Bang Theory.

-Evidence that quasars with vastly different redshifts appear to be interacting with each other gravitionally.
Got any reference for this?

-A recent discovery of very young galaxies that are very close to us, suggesting that galaxy formation is happening now.
Got any reference for this? Even if true: Where exactly is the problem with this?

Of course, none of these are enough to flat out scrap BB theory, but I think there is enough evidence to suggest we are not 100% on the ball.
Of course. Virtually no scientific theory is ever "100% on the ball". We already know, for instance, that GRT can not describe the first Planck second of the universe.

So in light of this, dismissing alternative theories out of hand is a dangerous thing to do. Science shouldn't be so dogmatic.
Dismssing plasma cosmology is more than justified.

[|2eason]

Ah, right, sources, ok.


-Evidence that galaxies at incredibly high redshifts are fully formed and have high concentrations of heavy elements. Totally contradicting BB theory.

I'm afraid I'll have to plagerise for this link:( http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=415372&postcount=35

-Evidence that quasars with vastly different redshifts appear to be interacting with each other gravitionally.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203466
http://cas.sdss.org/dr3/en/tools/places/page5.asp (3rd row down, 2nd colomn)

-A recent discovery of very young galaxies that are very close to us, suggesting that galaxy formation is happening now.

While not anything special, it suggests galaxy formation is an on going thing, maybe going on forever, who knows...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4117861.stm

Of course, none of this is enough to dislodge BB theory and I agree that lerner isn't 100% credible (he's also trying to get funding for plasma focus fusion (http://www.focusfusion.org/), all power to him if he succeds), but it's no reason to dismiss every alternative imo. And there are others out there, I'm thinking self-creation cosmology etc. Whilst they may not be right, they could be partly right, ie they could be a peice in the puzzle. That's something, isn't it?

[Sven]

Thanks for the references. I'll have a look later.

While not anything special, it suggests galaxy formation is an on going thing, maybe going on forever, who knows...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4117861.stm
I ask again: So what? If anything, this is a problem for our theories of galaxy formation - what's the relevance of this to the BBT?

it's no reason to dismiss every alternative imo.
As long as the alternative can explain the evidence with the same degree of success as the BBT, I see no reason to dismiss it. But such a theory simply does not exist up to now.

And there are others out there, I'm thinking self-creation cosmology
Sounds interesting. Never heard about it.

Whilst they may not be right, they could be partly right, ie they could be a peice in the puzzle. That's something, isn't it?
It is. As long as those folks can provide evidence for their theories, I have no problem with them

[|2eason]

Sounds interesting. Never heard about it.

Just as a matter of interest, here a link. It's a novel theory:)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212111

Edit: afiak, it is also falsifible. It predict different frame draging results from the GTR, which are currently being measured with Gravity probe B (http://einstein.stanford.edu/).

[|2eason]

On the whole issue of darkmatter.. I admit, the possiblilty that darkmatter exists doesn't take a huge leap in imagination to accept, matter that doesn't interact with normal matter seems reasonable. It's the fact that every galaxy, no matter what type, whether spiral, eliptical, whatever, has precisely the right amount of darkmatter, in precisely the right distibutions, to make it rotate uniformly... It doesn't make sense, there should be some exceptions.

[Anglican]

The thing about dark matter is that we don't used general rerlativty to model galaxies, for the most part we use Newtonian physics so if you're going to propose another solution to the problem we have to alter physics at the most basic level (this is precisely what MOND does), howver the evidence is still favours of dark matter. I don't know why it should be a problem that they rotate uniformly, the conservation of angular moemntum sees to it that they do this.

I see your interested in Garth's self creation cosmology (from what I understand it's an alternative relativstic theory of gravity), did you learn about it from physicsforums?

[|2eason]

The thing about dark matter is that we don't used general rerlativty to model galaxies, for the most part we use Newtonian physics so if you're going to propose another solution to the problem we have to alter physics at the most basic level (this is precisely what MOND does), howver the evidence is still favours of dark matter. I don't know why it should be a problem that they rotate uniformly, the conservation of angular moemntum sees to it that they do this.
If the combination of newtonian gravity and angular momentum was all that was in play, then dark matter would not be nessecary, would it?

I see your interested in Garth's self creation cosmology (from what I understand it's an alternative relativstic theory of gravity), did you learn about it from physicsforums?
Yes, I saw it on PF. I'm keeping an eye on Gravity probe B, let's leave it at that:)

[Anglican]

Newtonian mechanics with dark matter is probably all that is at play, but I was wondering why you think that ga;axies thta contain drak matter shouldn't obey the conservation of angular momentum.

[Schneibster]

-Evidence that galaxies at incredibly high redshifts are fully formed and have high concentrations of heavy elements. Totally contradicting BB theory.I'm afraid I'll have to plagerise for this link:( http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=415372&postcount=35Well, having taken a look, the evidence for high metallicity is quite heavily compromised. They aren't looking at actual metal emission or absorbtion lines; they're looking at Nitrogen emission lines and extrapolating from them. There is a paper out there that disputes whether this procedure is correct, and they quite correctly reference it and note that it is a caveat.

Speaking of galaxy formation, the understanding of galaxy formation in the early universe is in its infancy. I would not be surprised to have them run their estimates up and down a few more times before they finally start to figure it all out.

-Evidence that quasars with vastly different redshifts appear to be interacting with each other gravitionally.http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203466
This was a very interesting paper. There appears to be strong evidence for a class of interacting Seyfert galaxies that have anomalous red shifts, or are surrounded by objects with anomalous red shifts. It looks to me like the main object and the two others in the filament are all around z ~ 0.3, but there is a larger object at the end of the filament at around z ~ 0.5, and some of the filament gas is giving a very low red shift of z ~ 0.03. I suspect these objects are moving on their own, for whatever reason, and I make no speculation as to what might be going on. I note that the class seems limited to Seyfert galaxies and quasars; there was mention that there are no ordinary elliptical or spiral galaxies that show these anomalies. So I don't think this is very good evidence to use in trying to fight BBT. I suspect you'll need to wait ten years or more to get a good answer to what is going on. Trying to conclude anything at this point is like shooting at the moon.

http://cas.sdss.org/dr3/en/tools/places/page5.asp (3rd row down, 2nd colomn)They're the same object. Aren't there some more?

While not anything special, it suggests galaxy formation is an on going thing, maybe going on forever, who knows...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4117861.stmErrrmmmm, well, I guess I'd like to see something a little more technical before commenting.

[|2eason]

Newtonian mechanics with dark matter is probably all that is at play, but I was wondering why you think that ga;axies thta contain drak matter shouldn't obey the conservation of angular momentum.
I am no physics professor, but I know angular momentum doesn't quite hold true in curved space-time. It was discovered back in the 1930's that galaxies would fly apart when relativity is accounted for. Dark matter was theorised as a solution.
But as far as I can see, dark matter needs to be perfectly distributed in order to have the desired effect and every galaxy has a perfect compliment of DM. It seems a stretch to me, as a layman. Maybe you could spread some light on the subject?

[|2eason]

Well, having taken a look, the evidence for high metallicity is quite heavily compromised. They aren't looking at actual metal emission or absorbtion lines
And what about black holes with several million solar masses?

This was a very interesting paper. There appears to be strong evidence for a class of interacting Seyfert galaxies that have anomalous red shifts, or are surrounded by objects with anomalous red shifts....So I don't think this is very good evidence to use in trying to fight BBT.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discredit BBT, I'm nowhere near qualified. I just think there is enough evidence to warrant a second look.

They're the same object. Aren't there some more?

Yes, there are. I'll dig them up when I have time.

[Schneibster]

The plasma focus fusion stuff, on the other hand, was pretty interesting. I guess there's some controversy, though; take a look at some of the comments about the controversy over outperformance of the tokamak in the midst of the thread.

Look here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=57321).

This might be worth starting a thread on, if there were more information.

[Sven]

Just as a matter of interest, here a link. It's a novel theory:)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212111

Edit: afiak, it is also falsifible. It predict different frame draging results from the GTR, which are currently being measured with Gravity probe B (http://einstein.stanford.edu/).
I'm only a layman, so I can not really judge this. But this in the abstract: "there is no requirement for Inflation" sparked my interest - as far as I know, it's esatblished quite well by WMAP that inflation indeed happened.
Does this falsify this new theory, or does the quoted phrase mean that inflation is not required, but still possible?

[Anglican]

I am no physics professor, but I know angular momentum doesn't quite hold true in curved space-time. It was discovered back in the 1930's that galaxies would fly apart when relativity is accounted for. Dark matter was theorised as a solution.
But as far as I can see, dark matter needs to be perfectly distributed in order to have the desired effect and every galaxy has a perfect compliment of DM. It seems a stretch to me, as a layman. Maybe you could spread some light on the subject?

1) Yes angualr moentum is not generally conserved, howver the spacetimes we are talking about are well within the classicla limit and for all intents and purposes we can say it is conserved. The coservation of angular momentum here is a real red herring as the sbject has nothing to do whethr angualr moemntum is or is not conserved.

2) No relativty does not need to be taken into account, explaining the galactic rotation curves using relativty is overkill as the results do not differ in any signifcant way from Newtonian physics.

3) The distribution of dark matter varies from galaxy to galaxy just like the distribution of normal matter. Those that advocate MOND over CDM claim that the fact thta dark matter can have any distribution means that it can be made to explain just about any anomaly in the movement of galaxies whereas MOND ake sspeciifc predictions that are either true or false, those who adovcate CDM point out that MOND is an ad hoc thoery that is simply formulated to repelicate these anomalies.

[Richard of Chelmsfor]

I go for my own theory 'The Chelmsford Theory.'

I think that matter exists because the non-existence of matter does not exist.

Existence exists.

Non-existence does not exist.

We regard the universe as a single ball of expanding galaxies, and this is often portrayed as all there is.

I go for Dicke's idea of an 'oscillating universe' which goes continually from Big Bang to Big Crunch and so on.

And the universe is...a quark!

Somewhere Out There is another field of galaxies..not another universe, just more of our universe..another quark.

There are millions of them and together they form a vast ordered universe we cannot see.

Whci in turn is part of an even greater universe.

So too with the quarks in your body.

Each one is a field of galaxies in an oscillating universe so tiny we can't even amagine it.

A miniature universe which in turn forms anothger even smaller universe.

All of which have their own laws of physics which don't interact with ours.

I think the last science fiction attempt to go down this route was 'Men in Black'

But then, truth is stranger than fiction.

Perhaps. :p

[cpollett]

To the original question of what kind of universe do you believe in, I believe in a universe which is its own explanation.

In many intro computer science classes, they have a homework problem to write a computer program which when run outputs a listing of itself.

This is actually doable. Consider the instructions:

Print the text within the following quotes twice the second time using quotes: "Print the text within the following quotes twice the second time using quotes: "

My feeling, which may be wrong, is that the universe must be a program which behaves something like this. It must through its existence provide the neccessary apparatus for its own execution and if we watch its execution, we can eventually understand that it must exist because of the computation that it is performing.

Chris

[premjan]

To the original question of what kind of universe do you believe in, I believe in a universe which is its own explanation.

In many intro computer science classes, they have a homework problem to write a computer program which when run outputs a listing of itself.

This is actually doable. Consider the instructions:

Print the text within the following quotes twice the second time using quotes: "Print the text within the following quotes twice the second time using quotes: "

My feeling, which may be wrong, is that the universe must be a program which behaves something like this. It must through its existence provide the neccessary apparatus for its own execution and if we watch its execution, we can eventually understand that it must exist because of the computation that it is performing.

Chris

The only thing is that the universe's computational configuration might be changing over time (starts out as a single wave function and splits into multiple particles having multiple wave functions so many different local computations).

[cpollett]

The only thing is that the universe's computational configuration might be changing over time (starts out as a single wave function and splits into multiple particles having multiple wave functions so many different local computations).

I don't see how this contradicts in any way my suggestion. Particle physics is the running of the program, which is still continuing. We may be able to infer from particle physics whether or not we are doing some kind of fixed-point calculation. For instance, when we piece together what the universe is saying, we might see: Print the text within the following quotes twice the second time using quotes:

From which we could guess that a total explanation is probably:

Print the text within the following quotes twice the second time using quotes: "Print the text within the following quotes twice the second time using quotes: "

I believe also that what I was saying is more consistent with a single big-bang explanation of a universe. To see this, let G be the generate a universe operator. What I am suggesting is the this operator has the property G(G) = G. A multiverse seems to me to be a fixed-point of the form G(U) = U where U is not equal to G. This seems then to beg the question whence G? I guess theists would probably prefer the second possibility. BTW, if people have seen the other thread I started, I think a weak form of platonic atheism might be possible. Where the math needed to explain G might really exist.

[bogie_blogger]

Title: The inflationary scenario of the Big Bang

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simple enough.Not so simple. That theory requires a period of rapid expansion referred to as the inflationary epoch. Inflationary BBT theorists need the inflationary epoch to account for the observed isotropy of the particle horizon among other things. In order to make their theory work, the first instants of the expansion must have been exponential in order for the observed intensity of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) to be consistent with the tiny initial causally-connected region that they propose existed at the instant of the big bang. They don’t tell us how this exponential inflation stopped, or how the cooling effect of such expansion was overcome (what caused the reheating) to yield the measured radiation of the CMB. In addition, the cosmological constant required is thought to be a theoretical problem according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

[Dark Jedi]

<looks around>

I believe in this universe.

[Huon]

Is it possible to say :
"I do not believe any theory of the universe, and I do not feel the necessity of such a theory..."

[Sven]

Not so simple. That theory requires a period of rapid expansion referred to as the inflationary epoch. Inflationary BBT theorists need the inflationary epoch to account for the observed isotropy of the particle horizon among other things. In order to make their theory work, the first instants of the expansion must have been exponential in order for the observed intensity of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) to be consistent with the tiny initial causally-connected region that they propose existed at the instant of the big bang. They don’t tell us how this exponential inflation stopped, or how the cooling effect of such expansion was overcome (what caused the reheating) to yield the measured radiation of the CMB.
Factually incorrect. There's much research done on this question.
Start with googling "Inflaton" (without the second i).
Some links:
http://universe-review.ca/R02-13-inflation.htm (popular)
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/18/17/323/ (scholary)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2000hep.ph....7043H&amp;db_key=PRE (scholary)

In short: There's no consensus yet, but the topic is far from being hushed up.

In addition, the cosmological constant required is thought to be a theoretical problem according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
This is right, as far as I know. So what? Nobody claims that cosmology/BBT is perfect and has explained everything.

[bogie_blogger]

Factually incorrect. There's much research done on this question.
Start with googling "Inflaton" (without the second i).
Some links:
http://universe-review.ca/R02-13-inflation.htm (popular)
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/18/17/323/ (scholary)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2000hep.ph....7043H&amp;db_key=PRE (scholary)

In short: There's no consensus yet, but the topic is far from being hushed up.


This is right, as far as I know. So what? Nobody claims that cosmology/BBT is perfect and has explained everything.
Great links and interesting reading.

The inflationary period was "discovered" because of the particle horizon problem (I think). In order for CMB to have come from the big bang, causally connected, exponential inflation seems obvious. But what if the big bang expanded into an already existing universe and the boundary between the expanding big bang encountered the existing universe in some fashion?

I was told not to post things from one thread to another, but I think it is OK to link you to a post on another thread. If not, please IM me and let me know. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2108115#post2108115
This post recognizes the possibility if an infinite universe (ISU) into which the big bang is expanding accounting for the CMB as the hot dense expanding particles encounter the (inward bound) existing universe.

[cpollett]

I believe also that what I was saying is more consistent with a single big-bang explanation of a universe. To see this, let G be the generate a universe operator. What I am suggesting is the this operator has the property G(G) = G. A multiverse seems to me to be a fixed-point of the form G(U) = U where U is not equal to G. This seems then to beg the question whence G? I guess theists would probably prefer the second possibility. BTW, if people have seen the other thread I started, I think a weak form of platonic atheism might be possible. Where the math needed to explain G might really exist.

This thread seems to be dead, so this may mostly be a note to myself ( a postcard to my future self when I do a web search in a couple years and laugh at how naive I was). As written above in G(G)=G obviously G can't be a unitary operation (unless it were the identity). I wanted G to be both some kind of circuit and a density matrix. This is probably bogus even for more general kinds of quantum operations by variants of the no-cloning theorem. (The no-cloning theorem rules out quantum operations which can map |a>|s> to |a>|a>. Still, an operation |a>|s> to |a>|a parity s> would be legal.) However, can you create fixed-point operators (in the lambda calculus/combinatory logic sense) in quantum gravity?

Chris