[Winstonm]

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0506/05...licuniverse.htm

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/n...k?currentPage=2

Quote

For decades, physicists have accepted the notion that the universe started with the Big Bang, an explosive event at the literal beginning of time. Now, computational physicist Neil Turok is challenging that model -- and some scientists are taking him seriously.

And I thought inflation was always a monetary event....

[helene_t]

Winston, I think this is a semi-hoax.

I thought I have heard about this theory before and indeed, Discover magazine wrote about it in 2004:
http://discovermagaz.../2004/feb/cover

Such Maverick theories come up all the time in fields of science but nearly all the time have little or zip lasting impact on the debate.

Of course, for science to make significant progress, once in a while a maverick theory must have impact. It's just not, a priori, very likely that any particular theory does.

[babalu1997]

i hear you winston

the unpopular boss is about to retire

well sing glory hallelujah

problem is no one is contributiong to the parting gift

i am afraid she might yet agian unretire like she has been doing for the past 5 years

[Winstonm]

As is well-documented, I know not much of anything about nothing much and thus do not know how accurate any of this might be. I am curious about this concept of inflation, of which I had no knowledge. If what I read was accurate, in order for the Big Bang theory to operate there had to be sudden massive expansion out of singularity - an event called inflation.

Quote

Turok: If the universe sprung into existence and then expanded exponentially, you get gravitational waves traveling through space-time. These would fill the universe, a pattern of echoes of the inflation itself. In our model, the collision of these two branes doesn't make waves at all. So if we could measure the waves, we could see which theory is right.

Stephen Hawking bet me that we'll see the signal from inflation. I said that we won't

I think we should call this The Big Bet.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on May 29 2010, 02:02 PM, said:

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/02/0506/05...licuniverse.htm

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/n...k?currentPage=2

Quote

For decades, physicists have accepted the notion that the universe started with the Big Bang, an explosive event at the literal beginning of time. Now, computational physicist Neil Turok is challenging that model -- and some scientists are taking him seriously.

And I thought inflation was always a monetary event....

no that is not what inflation means



my take


inflation means....that the laws of physics..in the first nano second


was no....it meant....inflation on a super scale........


1) think of law
2)....stop...no......think of super law.....without.....discussion
3) ok

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on May 29 2010, 03:39 PM, said:

Winston, I think this is a semi-hoax.

I thought I have heard about this theory before and indeed, Discover magazine wrote about it in 2004:
http://discovermagaz.../2004/feb/cover

Such Maverick theories come up all the time in fields of science but nearly all the time have little or zip lasting impact on the debate.

Of course, for science to make significant progress, once in a while a maverick theory must have impact. It's just not, a priori, very likely that any particular theory does.

It appears to me that for how well-accepted it seems to be, the BB has some obvious unexplained holes that are only resolved by belief in the knowledge authority of the figures making the claims - let's quote Hawkings as proof - i.e., no different than religion in that respect.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 30 2010, 01:07 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 29 2010, 03:39 PM, said:

Winston, I think this is a semi-hoax.

I thought I have heard about this theory before and indeed, Discover magazine wrote about it in 2004:
http://discovermagaz.../2004/feb/cover

Such Maverick theories come up all the time in fields of science but nearly all the time have little or zip lasting impact on the debate.

Of course, for science to make significant progress, once in a while a maverick theory must have impact. It's just not, a priori, very likely that any particular theory does.

It appears to me that for how well-accepted it seems to be, the BB has some obvious unexplained holes that are only resolved by belief in the knowledge authority of the figures making the claims - let's quote Hawkings as proof - i.e., no different than religion in that respect.

actually, the bb was abhorred at first, for obvious reasons

[helene_t]

Maybe the most objective position would be to refer to the authorty of winstonm. OK, he may know zip about the issue, but who cares, Hawking etc probably know even less.

I suppose Jimmy refers to the fact that bb was taken off the agenda when it turned out that it would exceed the UN's CO2 emission limits.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Maybe the most objective position would be to refer to the authorty of winstonm.

Now you're talking.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on May 31 2010, 08:33 AM, said:

I suppose Jimmy refers to the fact that bb was taken off the agenda when it turned out that it would exceed the UN's CO2 emission limits.

i meant it was abhorred by the professionals, not the laymen... not least of the objections was that it meant the universe's beginning was an effect and that there had to be a corresponding cause

[PassedOut]

helene_t, on May 29 2010, 03:39 PM, said:

Of course, for science to make significant progress, once in a while a maverick theory must have impact. It's just not, a priori, very likely that any particular theory does.

True, but I don't know that anyone has proposed any other explanation for the origin of the universe that might be testable.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on May 31 2010, 06:20 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 31 2010, 08:33 AM, said:

I suppose Jimmy refers to the fact that bb was taken off the agenda when it turned out that it would exceed the UN's CO2 emission limits.

i meant it was abhorred by the professionals, not the laymen... not least of the objections was that it meant the universe's beginning was an effect and that there had to be a corresponding cause

Yes, the BB lends itself to cause/effect. It is in opposition to the steady state theory.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on May 31 2010, 06:56 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 29 2010, 03:39 PM, said:

Of course, for science to make significant progress, once in a while a maverick theory must have impact. It's just not, a priori, very likely that any particular theory does.

True, but I don't know that anyone has proposed any other explanation for the origin of the universe that might be testable.

That was my point earlier. I wasn't demeaning Hawkings but only pointing out that if falsifying becomes impossible then the boundaries between science and religion are smudged, and only logical (mathematical) arguments are possible.

[blackshoe]

The problem with the steady state theory is that it doesn't work.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on May 31 2010, 07:18 PM, said:

The problem with the steady state theory is that it doesn't work.

So I've heard. I also understand the BB has holes, as well.

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on May 31 2010, 06:56 PM, said:

helene_t, on May 29 2010, 03:39 PM, said:

Of course, for science to make significant progress, once in a while a maverick theory must have impact. It's just not, a priori, very likely that any particular theory does.

True, but I don't know that anyone has proposed any other explanation for the origin of the universe that might be testable.

Good thing...that's all we need is a buncha yahoos going around originating universes.

[Winstonm]

Quote

that's all we need is a buncha yahoos going around originating universes

I thought Google did it.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on May 31 2010, 08:26 PM, said:

blackshoe, on May 31 2010, 07:18 PM, said:

The problem with the steady state theory is that it doesn't work.

So I've heard. I also understand the BB has holes, as well.

Holes, yes, but not to the extent that it doesn't work.

Lots of theories have holes. When we plug the holes, we get a new theory. Someday, maybe, we'll come up with a theory with no holes. But I'm not holding my breath for it.

[helene_t]

Agree with Ed.

[phil_20686]

Since I do know something about it I feel obliged to comment on it:

1) The cyclic theory has been around for ages. Some physicists beleive in it, most don't. The arguments against it are pretty strong and can largely be summed up as : The second Law of thermodynamics.
Basically our universe is Special because it exists in a low entropy state, that is the only way that one can extract useful work.
The other reason that people don't like it has to do with Penrose's observation that a space time that contains black holes will not have a smooth big crunch that is time symmetrical with the big bang, instead it will produce a fractal geometry. You can read about it in penrose's book The Road To Reality.

2) Inflation is not part of the Big Bang Theory, it comes before, and creates the conditions necessary for the hot big bang.

3) There are some pretty convincing arguments in favour of inflation. Mostly to do with the existence of modes of perturbations that are larger than the observable universe. Before anyone complains that how can you see them the answer is because in an expanding universe they will reenter the horizon as the universe grows, and convincing simulations of General relativity tell you how many perturbations and on what size you need to form galaxies, and also to create the perturbations in the CMB.

4) Inflation is still somewhere between a paradigm and a theory. In one sense it has lots of observational evidence, but its unclear how much of the evidence is "real" in that we hardly have a comprehensive theory that excludes other things from creating them. I don't think physicists will be happy until they have tied a model of inflation together with particle physics in a believable way. We are a long way from doing this (imo).

5) There are still a number of people in cosmology who dont like the idea of inflation, but its become part of the standard theoretical model. It has a certain anthropic element if you beleive that the constants of nature can vary from place to place and only some combinations can inflate, then very soon the inflation regions will basically represent the entire universe. Some people like that, others don't.