Alternative theory of cosmic evolution

[Janus]

Originally posted by BBC News
A joint UK-US team has put forward an alternative theory of cosmic evolution.

It proposes that the Universe undergoes cycles of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches", meaning our Universe is merely a "child of the previous one".

It challenges the conventional view of the cosmos, which observations show to be 12-14 billion years old.

The new ideas, reported in the journal Science, may explain why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, the researchers say.

"At present the conventional view is that all of space, time, matter and energy began at a single point, which then expanded and cooled, leaving the Universe as it is today," said Professor Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, New Jersey.

"However, this new theory suggests that there's a continuous cycle of universes, with each a repeat of the last, but not an exact replica.

"It can be thought of as a child of the previous universe."

Cosmological constant

The new idea builds on previous work by the same team, and is set to challenge the current model.

Back in the 1920s, when Einstein was developing his general theory of relativity, he introduced a constant, known as the cosmological constant, to explain his idea of a static Universe.

Einstein's equations predicted a Universe collapsing under its own gravitational force, whereas observation showed it clearly was not contracting.

The cosmological constant represented an inherent pressure or force associated with free space, which would be resisting the gravity-drive contraction.

The concept was later abandoned when observations showed the Universe to be expanding - causing Einstein to label the cosmological constant as "the greatest blunder of my career".

In 1998, a form of the constant was re-habilitated when it was found that the Universe's expansion was actually speeding up.

Unanswered questions

Although the re-introduction of the constant enabled calculations to match theory, it also raised the question that there was something in physics that was "missing".
Professor Neil Turok, of Cambridge University, told the BBC News website: "When the value of the cosmological constant was calculated, it was found to be much smaller than expected.

"The explanation as to why this constant is so small has become one of the biggest problems in physics.

"At present, the only explanation for this is that things just have to be that way." This theory leaves many questions unanswered, but now Professors Steinhardt and Turok have developed a new theory to explain why the cosmological constant is so small.

They suggest that time actually began before the Big Bang, meaning there was a pre-existing universe.

This would also mean that the current Universe is much older than presently accepted.

Dark matter

"At present there may be an alternative 'dark matter' universe that exists at the same time as ours, but we could never reach it," explained Professor Turok.

"The best way to think of this is to think of a pane of double glazing with a fly on it. The fly is unable to cross over from one side to another, just like we are unable to get from one universe to another.

"These two universes are drawn together by the force of gravity and will eventually collide.

"This means that things that are happening now will help to create another universe in the future."

[Shredder]

What's new about it? Cycling universe has been done. Now, you can even invent your own oscillating universe theory with a 6 pack of Jell-O cups, a math co-proccessor, and the complete season 1 DVD of Full House.

[ComradeRed]

I wouldn't bet the rent money that the theory of "multiply universes" is viable, much less logical!

There are many observers, not universes. The universe is defined by what goes on inside of it, like a tennis game. It is NOT an arena where tennis is held.

This is the only point I dislike of this theory of theirs. <_<

[Janus]

Since I&#39;m not a scientists of any type, I can&#39;t really make a truly qualified judgement. However, I do see multiple universes as somewhat strange. But this is simply a theory after all and one that doesn&#39;t have a lot of evidence behind it.

[ComradeRed]

Well, think of it this way: the universe is defined by what&#39;s inside of it and what is going on inside of it.

If there are more than one universe, then where and how are they connected? There would have to be some sort of "super" universe that contains these "other" universes.

That&#39;s nonsense&#33; There are many observers, not universes&#33;

[RebelDog]

I like the theory of many universes, but whether it is true, who knows. I think &#39;many histories&#39; could also mean many universes. I just really hope that another version of me is living in a communist one.

[enigma2517]

There would have to be some sort of "super" universe that contains these "other" universes.

Could you explain that a little bit more in depth comrade?

For instance, couldn&#39;t you have several rooms, each that have their own little thing going on inside of them, but have those rooms preside all within the same building?

[ComradeRed]

Could you explain that a little bit more in depth comrade?

For instance, couldn&#39;t you have several rooms, each that have their own little thing going on inside of them, but have those rooms preside all within the same building? Well, it would be like saying every room is a self sufficient house...only to be connected to other rooms out of necessity&#33;

A bathroom can&#39;t stand alone as a house; neither could a kitchen&#33; But this is a rather misconceiving presentation of the universe. It is not a "thing" like a stage or a colloseum, it is like what goes on in the collaseum or what goes on on the stage.

What occurs in the universe defines the universe...sort of like how commodities are produce defines the mode of production.

In this view, let us adopt the universe as a play. There aren&#39;t a number of plays occuring all at once, but a number of observers watching the same play with different focuses.

When the observers compare what&#39;s going on, they get different things because they looked at different aspects of the play they just don&#39;t recognize this right away.

Consequently, there is much confusion about it. But there was still only one play and many observers, that&#39;s the approach that should be taken rather than asserting there were many plays with a single observer.


I like the theory of many universes, but whether it is true, who knows. I think &#39;many histories&#39; could also mean many universes. I just really hope that another version of me is living in a communist one. Have you heard of the "sum over histories" interpretation of quantum mechanics? I&#39;ve been entertaining the idea of applying a similiar idea to Marxism, based on materialist causality ;)

Interesting to think about.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 10:28 PM



[QUOTE] I like the theory of many universes, but whether it is true, who knows. I think &#39;many histories&#39; could also mean many universes. I just really hope that another version of me is living in a communist one. Have you heard of the "sum over histories" interpretation of quantum mechanics? I&#39;ve been entertaining the idea of applying a similiar idea to Marxism, based on materialist causality ;)

Interesting to think about.
I am a big fan of quantum theory, as a lay man of course. I was quite shocked when I first read of Youngs double slit experiment. Sum over histories I know from reading about QM. How does QM sit with materialism?

Something I thought of the other day was that a theory, big bang I think, says that in the early universe there was a battle between matter and anti-matter. Matter won because there was slightly more than anti-matter. I assumed that this was more proof of the validity of materialism. Ever heard this said before?

[ComradeRed]

I am a big fan of quantum theory, as a lay man of course. I was quite shocked when I first read of Youngs double slit experiment. Sum over histories I know from reading about QM. How does QM sit with materialism? Well, there are a number of "interpretations" of QM. There are a number of interpretations compatible with materialism (my personal favorite that I use all the time is relational QM (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/), which incorporates the observer in QM as Einstein&#39;s Relativity does with classical mechanics...sorta.

Traditional QM (Heisenberg&#39;s version and Schrodigner&#39;s version both) has the observer has some mythical being that "sees all" :lol: This has to do with the reference frame used in QM.

The system the observer is watching is not compared to anything, just some ideal system that can never exist.

Instead, relational QM says that the evolution of a system is defined only in relation to that system itself. An event in this evolution occurs only relative to another event. And so on.

Quantum theory is probably one of those "favorite layperson&#39;s field" because it&#39;s so hard to understand; but it is going to radically change, that I can guarentee you. It will resemble thermodynamics with the generalizations and averages of time it takes to relay information, rather than something resembling classical mechancis.

At least, in order to quantize gravity ;)

[Janus]

I was quite shocked when I first read of Youngs double slit experiment.
Well, that&#39;s only quantum mechanical when quantum particles manifest themselves as waves.


When the observers compare what&#39;s going on, they get different things because they looked at different aspects of the play they just don&#39;t recognize this right away.

Consequently, there is much confusion about it. But there was still only one play and many observers, that&#39;s the approach that should be taken rather than asserting there were many plays with a single observer.
So, that&#39;s what you&#39;re saying this alternative theory arose from right? How exactly do the different observers see different things when looking at the universe?

[ComradeRed]

So, that&#39;s what you&#39;re saying this alternative theory arose from right? No, it&#39;s not an "alternative" theory; just as relativity isn&#39;t an "alternative" theory to the Newtonian System.

This is actually very much in relation to "old School" QM as what relativity is to Newton.

It&#39;s so recent though and contraversial, that there is only one (graduate level) textbook on it...and that&#39;s nothing more than a reiteration of the technical papers.

One thing I can guarentee is that the oldschool QM will be replaced by a better, relational one.


How exactly do the different observers see different things when looking at the universe? It depends on the different observers&#39; frames of reference.

For example, in an inertial frame, one observes particle A emitting particle B. However, in an accelerating frame, the accelerated observer sees particle A absorbing particle B. This is the "Unruh Effect".

There other examples, but this is the most interesting in my opinion.

[Janus]

No, it&#39;s not an "alternative" theory; just as relativity isn&#39;t an "alternative" theory to the Newtonian System.
Are we talking about the same thing? I meant this alternative theory of cosmological evolution and not relational quantum theory.

[ComradeRed]

Oh, pardon me, I was speaking with reference to relational QM and the compatibility of RQM with materialism (in response to Dissenter, that is).

Any cosmological theory that involves "many" (i.e. more than one) universes is too Platonic and too idealistic for me to accept.

I&#39;m an old fart like that :lol:

[Janus]

I&#39;m an old fart like that
I figured. :lol: :lol:


Oh, pardon me, I was speaking with reference to relational QM and the compatibility of RQM with materialism
No problem, I was simply asking a question about the main topic itself.


Any cosmological theory that involves "many" (i.e. more than one) universes is too Platonic and too idealistic for me to accept.
I understand where you&#39;re coming from though how exactly is it Platonic idealistic?

[ComradeRed]

I understand where you&#39;re coming from though how exactly is it Platonic idealistic? You have a universe that embodies the other universes (how else could they be connected? Or interact or collide, etc.), which is unchanging (I daresay, Newtonian).

The other universes are constantly changing and "Einsteinian" (meant both topologically and literally). But their interaction is based on their states in the bigger universe.

There is the changing physical objects and the unchanging place for an infinite number of objects. That&#39;s platonic enough for me ;)

[Janus]

You have a universe that embodies the other universes (how else could they be connected? Or interact or collide, etc.), which is unchanging (I daresay, Newtonian).

The other universes are constantly changing and "Einsteinian" (meant both topologically and literally). But their interaction is based on their states in the bigger universe.

There is the changing physical objects and the unchanging place for an infinite number of objects. That&#39;s platonic enough for me
Couldn&#39;t the different universes interact in some way between themselves?

[ComradeRed]

How could you tell how far away they are? Or the position/orientation of the universes?

This ultimately is impossible to answer unless adopting a platonic stance, which I am unwilling to do.

[Janus]

How could you tell how far away they are? Or the position/orientation of the universes?
I&#39;m not a scientist so I have no idea but who knows maybe the technology would turn up. I agree that it does seem somewhat idealistic though but there doesn&#39;t seem to be concrete evidence to disprove it.

[ComradeRed]

Well, if general relativity is right, then there is only one universe since spacetime is itself a field (essentially).

If there are many universes, that leaves some serious problems for the concept of this super-universe.

In such a case, it comes into direct conflict with experimentally-verified general relativity.

Though, as (paraphrased from) Shakespeare once said, these physicists came to honor Einstein, not bury him.