One Big Bang, Or Many? 492
butterwise writes "From the Guardian Unlimited: 'The universe is at least 986 billion years older than physicists thought and is probably much older still, according to a radical new theory. The revolutionary study suggests that time did not begin with the big bang 14 billion years ago. This mammoth explosion which created all the matter we see around us, was just the most recent of many.'"
God is one kinky SOB (Score:2, Funny)
** I hope I don't get smited for that
Re:God is one kinky SOB (Score:5, Funny)
Re:God is one kinky SOB (Score:2, Funny)
No problem. Just come along, if you like!
God.
Re:God is one kinky SOB (Score:5, Funny)
** I hope I don't get smited for that
For some reason, when I conjugate the verb word "smite" in that context, I get "smut".
(Yes, I know, it should be "smitten", but that's hardly humorous.)
Re:Don't worry too much (Score:2, Insightful)
No.
Whew! (Score:4, Funny)
And you know how quickly that kind of thing can ruin your day!
Re:Whew! (Score:2)
Funny you should mention it, that would be my favourite way to die: completely unexpectedly, instantaneously, with no perception, and hence no pain or mental trauma.
Hopefully by the time I'm an old git dying of ${GRIM_PAINFUL_DISEASE} there will be legal euthanasia.
Re:Whew! (Score:3, Funny)
-1 for self-contradiction, -1 for lateness (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA (emphasis mine): And also from TFA (again, emphasis mine):
Now, I'm no cosmologist, but these two descriptions of the theory seem to be in conflict...does the matter in the universe come together in the Big Crunch, or does it fly off into space forever, replenished by subsequent Big Bang events?
If the Guardian Unlimited doesn't even know what the theory is proposing, why are they reporting it?
Fortunately, we needn't depend upon Guardian Unlimited for our cosmology news...Nature.com happens to have a much more informative article [nature.com] on the subject. What's especially amusing is that they've had this article since April 26th of 2002.
Re:-1 for self-contradiction, -1 for lateness (Score:2, Interesting)
Better question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, if this property holds true for the universe, and eventually our universe will expand a whole lot and lead to a new bang, exactly where in the known universe will this bang occur?
Or, perhaps there IS a center to the universe. If this is true, what would this do for relativity, which states that ALL frames of reference are valid? If you could just fly in a rocket and see a bit red cement pole with "center of universe" painted on it, that would make a dandy absolute reference point.
Re:Better question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Everywhere.
-matthew
Re:Better question... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm also curious about where these new "big bangs" occur, since the big bang in normal cosmology (i.e. the Friedman-Robertson-Walker based on General Relativity) happens everywhere, not in one particular place. It's not clear that that is the picture in this new theory. This actually sounds less like F-R-W cosmology and more like a steady state model that Fred Hoyle was pushing a while back.
On to the point about providing an absolute reference frame, that might not be such a big issue. The difference here is between what's called weak lorentz symmetry breaking and strong lorentz symmetry breaking (if I'm not mistaken). Relativity says the laws of physics are the same in all frames, but it could be that one frame ends up being easily recognized, even though it doesn't have special laws (this is the weak sort of symmetry breaking). In fact, we already have this because of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). The CMBR defines the average rest frame of the observable Universe. On Earth, the CMBR looks blue shifted in one direction and redshifted in the opposite direction, because we're moving with respect to the CMBR rest frame. So, you could argue that if you get in your spaceship and turn on the thrusters until this redshift effect goes away, you'll really be "at rest" (that is, you'll be at rest in the average rest frame of matter in the universe). So there is a sort of sign post (for a particular velocity, not a particular position), but the laws of physics aren't any different in that frame, so this doesn't break relativity.
Re:Better question... (Score:4, Informative)
Similarly, the centre of mass of the solar system is within the Sun, but still the Sun has a wobble due to its orbiting of the rest of the bodies in the system. That's more complex, of course, as with so many bodies, they tend to be at different points around it. Also the Sun is so much more massive than the other solar bodies as to render the effect essentially negligible.
The effect tends to be more noticeable in binary star systems as the two stars tend to be more closely matched in terms of mass. In that case, the centre of mass of the system is more nearly half-way between them. They both orbit something, but that something is a point of empty space.
Incidentally, this effect is how we've detected some extra-solar planets - particularly massive ones orbiting relatively small stars cause a noticeable wobble.
Re:-1 for self-contradiction, -1 for lateness (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:-1 for self-contradiction, -1 for lateness (Score:2)
Obviously, after it reaches the edge of the universe, it creeps back along the bottom to start from the center again.
Re:-1 for self-contradiction, -1 for lateness (Score:3, Funny)
Where do baby universes come from?
Well, when two universes love each other very much...Wrong... read more closely (Score:3, Insightful)
How that part works out would be an interesting read. One aspect of the duality that binds the various aspects of M-Theory is that for certain branches of the theory, what is true at one geometric scale n is true
Re:Wrong... read more closely (Score:3, Informative)
H
Re:-1 for self-contradiction, -1 for lateness (Score:5, Interesting)
Dimensions are weird things. Imagine a two-dimensional plane that goes on infinitely. For a finite, two-dimensional being on that plane, there can only be two-dimensions. As far as he can see, his Universe is the only one. But there can be a million other dimensions stacked onto his in the third dimension. He is just one page on the book, but he cannot observe that third plane. Brane theory observes that just because X dimensions exist, that does not mean we experience all of them.
Think about time as the fourth dimension. Basically, a n-dimension allows you to add an infinite amount of things on the same place in a (n-1)-dimension world. In a two-dimensional world, you can stack many lines onto each other in the second dimension along the plane. A two-dimension sheet can be stacked infinitely in the third-dimension, so many objects can share the same two-dimensional space along the third-dimension. Many objects can exist at the same three-dimension coordinates but at different times.
What if there are more than one time-dimensions? Or more than three-spatial dimensions? Is there any postulate that says we can observe them all if they exist? That's kind of the battle because there can be no direct "proof" of any other dimensions, if they exist. Yet the other dimensions can still affect our dimension. That's why cosmology seems to be so made: because it is.
Re:Global Warming, Universe Competition (Score:5, Funny)
Where people hang out on dotslash.moc, a web site for intellectually average people with magnificent sex lives. News for normals. You look mahvelous.
Re:-1 for self-contradiction, -1 for lateness (Score:2)
Re:-1 for self-contradiction, -1 for lateness (Score:4, Funny)
Re:-1 for self-contradiction, -1 for lateness (Score:4, Interesting)
Taking Numbers at Face Value (Score:5, Funny)
I always found it amusing when people take scientific estimates at face value. The article says something along the lines of "the universe could be up to a trillion years old," so, obviously, the universe is precisely 1 trillion years old.
Re:Taking Numbers at Face Value (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Taking Numbers at Face Value (Score:2)
How is the Revolutionary? (Score:2, Informative)
So do I get my AARP card that much sooner? (Score:2, Funny)
A more comforting theory (Score:5, Interesting)
It did trigger the beginnings of an idea for a science fiction novel. What if the current state of the universe was the result of tinkering from the previous big bang cycle? If you end up with constants that make life more difficult, blame those that came before. Sort of like global warming on a multi-universal scale.
Re:A more comforting theory (Score:2)
Re:A more comforting theory (Score:2)
Re:A more comforting theory (Score:2)
Re:A more comforting theory (Score:2)
In our experience with the universe, are there many things that happen only once? Sure, there are variations, but things that are utterly unique? Nearly everything is the outcome of obvious interactions with physical laws. We see the contant refections of math in the world, we see stars forming, and stars failing, planets being born, planets disintigrating. Things grow, things die.
But the universe has a beginning and an en
This isn't very surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This isn't very surprising (Score:2)
Re:This isn't very surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
While this suggests the existence of a pre-Big-Bang universe, it does not suggest that the latest Big Bang took place any earlier than current estimates used for hte single-Big Bang theory.
So if there are problems with the speed of expansion post-Big Bang, t
See also... (Score:5, Informative)
So... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:2)
Now -that's- funny.
Re:So... (Score:2)
Utter example of handwaving (Score:3, Insightful)
Mind-boggling? Yes.
Good story to impress your wife or kids? Yes.
Scientific? No.
very old news (Score:3, Interesting)
Any way you can find in a lot of places informations about a lot of Galaxies that have been classified older than the big bang (15 billons years) !
The french magazine "Science et Vie" have some goods articles on the subject this mounth release.
This question also helps sort out /. readers (Score:2)
Re:This question also helps sort out /. readers (Score:2)
Umm, I was referring to /. readers' SEX LIVES lol (Score:2)
heh heh
Never know! (Score:5, Funny)
Hindu Cosmology (Score:5, Interesting)
In short, Hindu scriptures accept the Big Bang (and for that matter Evolution), but believe that it is cyclical in nature. Destruction follows creation, to be followed by creation again. Similarly, "devolution" follows evolution, in a cycle to be repeated endlessly.
While there are many links to back this up, here's the most relevant one I found on Hindu Cosmology [atributetohinduism.com] (I'm not affiliated to it in any way, just happened to be one of the first sites that came up on a Google search). Among other prominent people, it also carries this quote from Carl Sagan [wikipedia.org]'s description of Hindu cosmology in his book Cosmos. To quote:
The late scientist, Carl Sagan, in his book, Cosmos asserts that the Dance of Nataraja (Tandava) signifies the cycle of evolution and destruction of the cosmic universe (Big Bang Theory).
"It is the clearest image of the activity of God which any art or religion can boast of." Modern physics has shown that the rhythm of creation and destruction is not only manifest in the turn of the seasons and in the birth and death of all living creatures, but also the very essence of inorganic matter.
For modern physicists, then, Shiva's dance is the dance of subatomic matter. Hundreds of years ago, Indian artist created visual images of dancing Shiva's in a beautiful series of bronzes. Today, physicist have used the most advanced technology to portray the pattern of the cosmic dance. Thus, the metaphor of the cosmic dance unifies, ancient religious art and modern physics. The Hindus, according to Monier-Williams, were Spinozists more than 2,000 years before the advent of Spinoza, and Darwinians many centuries before Darwin and Evolutionists many centuries before the doctrine of Evolution was accepted by scientists of the present age.
"The Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang. And there are much longer time scales still."
"The most elegant and sublime of these is a representation of the creation of the universe at the beginning of each cosmic cycle, a motif known as the cosmic dance of Lord Shiva. The god, called in this manifestation Nataraja, the Dance King. In the upper right hand is a drum whose sound is the sound of creation. In the upper left hand is a tongue of flame, a reminder that the universe, now newly created, with billions of years from now will be utterly destroyed."
Re:Hindu Cosmology (Score:4, Insightful)
Strange how this coincides with the theory of "Cosmic cycles" in Hinduism and other Vedic religions like Buddhism
It's not strange at all. With many different religions and each religion having many different sects, how scientists describe how our universe works will seem similar to some religion somewhere.
If you think about it, religion is one way for people to describe what is happening in the world around them.
Personally, I say keep your faith and your science seperate.
Re:Hindu Cosmology (Score:2)
Except that faith has to be based on reality, otherwise it would be intellectually dishonest.
From my own point of view as a Christian, if something that the Bible appeared to hold as true flatly contradicted what I knew to be true from my own experience then I would have to seriously re-examine either my understanding of the Bible, or my understanding of my experience. If the two are in contradiction, then one is wrong.
Devolution (Score:2)
A: We are Devo!
...Or none? (Score:2)
Very Old theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Very Old theory (Score:2)
Re:Very Old theory (Score:2)
Re:Very Old theory (Score:2)
Everybody except of course Durandal [bungie.org]...
Re:Very Old theory (Score:3, Insightful)
Now we are finding some crazy shit. Stuff doesn't move the way it is supposed to. The crazy double super secret invisible "cosmological constant" and "dark matter" sound more to me like m
986 billion exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not the theory will hold up in the future nobody knows but as for right now everyone needs to remember this is a theory like any and decieving people into thinking its otherwise is unfair.
Re:986 billion exactly? (Score:3, Funny)
It's no wonder people buy into Intellegent Design (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's no wonder people buy into Intellegent Desi (Score:2)
I think calling scientific theories 'laws' is a big mistake. After all, it is not as if the earth goes round the sun because it obeys Newton's law of gravitation. But the way you hear people speaking sometimes you would be forgiven for thinking so.
There is a huge difference between 'law' in a prescriptive sense (which is how it is used most of the time) and 'law' in a descriptive sense (which is how scien
Re:It's no wonder people buy into Intellegent Desi (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean "tautology." If it's a scientific theory then by definition it cannot be proved, only disproved.
From the article it's hard to say whether this is a theory, a modification to an existing theory, or a hypothesis.
A theory isn't just an accepted hypothesis, it's a descriptive edifice that lets you make predictions. Those predictions are hypotheses.
Just a thought (Score:2)
1)The universe is cyclical in which all matter collapses to a single point and the big bang repeats an infinite number of times.
2)That when we die we have no perception of time.
Then:
Would it not stand to reason that we would experience everything in the universe moving from one existence to the next with no delay in the relative sense?
Wow! This precisely cooincides with... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm flabbergasted!
Metaphysics (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Metaphysics (Score:2)
The big bang theory is shady (Score:2)
I personally think both theories are far too limited in scope to describe the universe, but with only a BS in Astronomy, who among you would listen to my babblings?
Shades of Babylon 5 (Score:2)
Shades of Babylon 5 there. From one of the Season 4 episodes, Into the Fire (I couldn't find the exact quotes online from work, this is my idea of what happened):
And at the end of the war, all of the remaining First Ones went Beyond the Rim, and were never heard from again.
If Tufts university can (Score:2)
In other, related news, the big bang was not unique and the universe is at least a trillion years old. If you think Katrina was too much for FEMA, wait until the next big bang!
..or maybe (Score:2)
Galactus? (Score:2)
Guardian misses the point (Score:4, Informative)
The cyclic model has been around for several years, and there is plenty I don't understand about it, but it is distinct from the old big bang-big crunch ideas. The "cycle" is the repeated collision between two sub-universes, called branes. We live in one of these sub-universes. Each collision resets our sub-universe with a new big bang... Our universe is constantly expanding; there is no crunch.
Importantly, the cyclic theory has detectable differences from the standard big bang scenario. For example, primordial gravity waves, detectable through their influence on the polarization of the cosmic microwave background, are present in the standard big bang scenario and absent here. Thus their possible detection by a future microwave experiment could rule out this theory.
The purpose of this new work is to argue that the cosmological constant (the factor which make the expansion of the universe accelerate) is naturally small and positive in the cyclic model. This is as we observe it. The standard big bang theory does not make a prediction for the size of the cosmological constant (it's just a parameter), while in string theories the expected size of the constant is vastly larger.
Steinhardt has many materials (including a cartoon movie of the brane collision) on his homepage [princeton.edu].
Is this science or religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me know when they've got a good way to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
After all, I can say the universe was created "in progress" 30 seconds ago, and you can neither prove nor disprove it. It's an untestable theory. Even if I am right, it's scientifically useless to take such a theory seriously as a scientific theory.
Cosmological constant survives the Big Crunch? (Score:4, Informative)
a) Might diminish over time, and
b) Might be able to survive a Big Crunch/Bang cycle, and
c) Seems to be smaller than it "should" be if the universe was created 14 billion years ago.
From these, they propose that:
d) The universe is actually much older and has gone through many Big Crunch/Bang cycles, allowing enough time for the CC to shrink to its current level.
However, I'd like to see some hard evidence for a), b), and c) before I accept that d) might be true.
Letter to the Editors (Score:2, Interesting)
hmm.. (Score:2)
Just say you dont know! (Score:2, Interesting)
I dont see any fossil records, star charts, photos etc, to proove this. Is this just a bunch of nerds sitting around contemplating the cosmos?
Actual Article (Score:4, Informative)
finally (Score:3, Funny)
Good work, Dad :) (Score:3, Interesting)
If scientists can have a theory where everything explodes, contracts & explodes, then why not little parts of the universe doing the same thing.
Of course this doesn't exactly satisfy our curiosity - there are still questions of where matter & energy came from, if there was a beginning of time, etc, but somehow I don't think these are ever going to be explained in a way that people can digest in an ordinary state of consciousness. The ultimate nature of the universe is far more bizarre than we could possibly imagine.
But anyway, this theory of multiple big bangs & contractions makes perfect sense to me.
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why, pray tell, did you bother to enlighten us with your "theories?"
Common sense told Aristotle that objects fall because they are trying to return to a natural state of rest. Common sense and intuition are ridiculously bad tools for scientific inquiry. Esthetically-pleasing deductions with no empirical evidence are even worse.
Re:what? (Score:2)
It almost sounds like you're saying that no one other than a scientist is allowed to posture about science. I guess we should all just accept whichever most common theory is spoonfed to us and not use our own intellect at all. They must be completely right, it's not like major scientific theories aren't re-written all the time or anything.
I'm not writing journal pape
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing magical about scientists that separates them from non-scientists. Science is a method anyone can use. Fanciful statements about the grand order of things and how natural phenomena are governed by laws inferred from common sense, however, do not science make. We should accept whatever theory is most consistent with the evidence, with a degree of reservation proportional to said theory's contradictions or shortcomings, be they internal inconsistencies or empirical evidence that it cannot explain.
Besides, if you want a common sense system to explain the universe, I recommend basing it on the Ptolemaic system [wikipedia.org]--at least that one has had some pretty good mileage.
Hillarious malaprop (Score:2)
Re:what? (Score:2)
But who needs data?
Fractals (Score:2)
-matthew
Re:what? (Score:2)
We don't need no steenkin' data, man. Your eye-witness account is good enough for us, but if you did manage to get it on video, dude! that would be awesome to see. Did you?
No they're not (Score:3, Interesting)
"The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and concomitantly huge temperatures and pressures. It expanded and cooled, going through phase transitions analogous to the condensation of steam or freezing of water as it cools, but related to elementary particles.
Approximately 10-35 seconds after the Planck epoch a phase transition caused the universe to experience exponential growth during a period called cosmic inflation. After inflation stopp
Re:No they're not (Score:2)
Re:Big Bang Created ??? (Score:2)
Think about a black hole, or super-massive blackhole. Where does all the matter go that it sucks in? Probably not some other dimension. It's probably being packed together in an ever increasing mass. After so much comes together, there's probably a breaking point that releases it.
Conjecture of course, but it goes toward explaining your question. And it's the explaination that makes the most sense to me. No matter is truly created or destro
Yet... (Score:3, Interesting)
Neither a finite nor infinite universe are really within the ability of human comprehension as evidenced by the fact that every scientific, philosophical and religious argument out there basically boils down to "everything that exists was created by, erm, uhm, uh, this other thing...and this other thing... and oh, damn it, it just is, okay?"
Re:Yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly the dilemma. You can't imagine absolutely nothing, but there's no reasonable explanation for existence either.
Re:Time had a beginning? (Score:2)
Think of the graphs y = ln( x), y = x, and y = exp( x). To change from one to the next, you transform x into ln( x). In other words, measure time with a different clock. In the third case, y has a finite minimum value: 0. In the first and second cases, it doesn't.
The universe can also be finite (i.e. having a measurable size
Re:Time had a beginning? (Score:5, Interesting)
It works something like this: according to relativity, space and time are really linked together as 4 dimensional spacetime. Just as 2- and 3-dimensional objects can have shape, so can 4-dimensional objects like spacetime. When physicists try and get some idea of the shape of spacetime they find that it "narrows to a point in the time direction" - the big bang.
Perhaps an analogy is the best way to think about it. A sphere is a two dimensional surface in a particular shape - at any point of the surface of the sphere you can parameterise direction in terms of 2 perpendicular base vectors. We do exactly that with directions about the surface of the earth (though we call "negative east" west, and "negative north" south), so if you like you can think of north and east as the dimensions/directions on the surface of the earth. If you keep heading north, however, you find that the sphere narrows to a point in that directions - the north pole. You can't really talk about what is north of the north pole - the question doesn't really make sense. Of course you can only really see that by stepping outside and observing the 2-dimensional surface of the earth as it is embedded into 3-dimensional space; if we look at things in terms of a more easy to picture map projection into 2-dimensions (just as the surface is 2-dimensional) you might think "can't we just keep going up? Surely there's more north?"
In practice spacetime works roughly the same way except the "surface" is 4-dimensional instead of 2-dimensional. The key point is that heading back in the time direction is just like heading in the north direction of the sphere - eventually you reach a point, like the north pole, where "before" or "further back in time" doesn't make sense, in just the same way that "further north of the north pole" doesn't make sense. From our perspective inside spacetime that's harder to imagine, similar to the way the map projection tends to skew your thinking. It is made worse by the fact that we usually tend to think of time as something very separate to space rather than just another direction. The concept of time beginning with the big bang does make sense, it just requires you to break out of the standard intuitions about how space and time fit together.
Jedidiah.
Re:Time had a beginning? (Score:2)
Re:Time had a beginning? (Score:2)
Second Law of Thermodynamics (Score:2)
Re:Second Law of Thermodynamics (Score:2)
Re:What makes this really interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Giant Recycling Machine (Score:3, Funny)
(Sorry, couldn't resist)