Top Physicists Trade Jabs Over Cosmological Models Of The Universe. (light, black hole)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another interesting article from Scientific American Magazine. Alan Guth came up with the Cosmological Inflation Model to refine the Big Bang Theory. He know believes that Inflation came to an end in our local Universe; but it continues beyond our Cosmic Horizon for eternity.
Therefore we are but one Universe within a Multiverse. David Gross does not agree with this conclusion but can only produce some dubious evidence; which depends on how an observer views the Multiverse. IMHO...Guth is correct and his theory lends further credence to the Multiverse Theory.
The last video from "The Universe" about "Parallel Universes" was on the History Channel last night.
Squabbles over different views about cosmological models seem to pop in and out of existence from time to time like quantum particles. LOL! A classic argument from the past was Sir Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory of an eternal universe vs the newer (at the time) Big Bang theory of the universe. Hoyle's argument seemed to lean more toward suggesting that the observable universe is all there is, and that its size may be infinite but still contained within our universe. Although Hoyle may have erred in assuming that the universe has always existed, he may have been sort of on the right track. The difference being that what we call our universe is only a tiny part of a vastly greater system of other clusters the size of our universe, but are just too far to detect.
We know that space seems to be expanding at faster rates, rather than slowing down. Space itself may be infinite in size, and containing perhaps an infinite number of universe-sized clusters, some of which may be similar to our own. That kind of falls into the view I've suggested that it's possible our "universe" might be part of an infinite-sized megaverse. It would not negate Big Bangs as the beginning of universes from such a scenario.
Interestingly, the WMAP view of the universe shows the shape of the universe to be geometrically flat. Dr. Michio Kaku comments about the view that the universe might not be flat at all, but more like an expanding bubble, except that the "bubble" is so incredibly vast that it only looks flat to us. That's certainly possible. He also suggests that there could be other universes with copies of you and I, right next to us, but are invisible to us because they are dimensionally separated, even if only by a tiny fraction of an inch. If that's the case, then the large colliders might be able to detect gravitons vanishing into another dimension. Such a detection would be to note slightly less energy released from colliding particles than would be otherwise expected. It'll be interesting to see what develops from such experiments.
Since we don't know everything about the universe, or how and why it exists at all, anything is possible. What seems apparent though is that the universe is a very strange place.
I can see Alan Guth's view as making sense because if we consider that the farthest objects in the universe are also objects that were closer in time to the Big Bang, then the period of inflation would have been even closer to the Big Bang than those objects. In effect, putting those objects and inflation near the "edge" of the universe. That's not to say the universe has an edge. There is no real edge. The expansion is of space itself. That said, it would seem like the inflation would be growing more distant with the passage of time. From a practical point of view, it could be said the inflation would go on forever. But I'm more inclined to think it would ultimately fade away and dissipate into nothing rather than actually go on forever.
The back of the turtle is starting to look more inviting...
Another riveting post...completely lacking any credible links/scientific resources/educational institutions etc.....par for the course it seems....ROFLMAO....
Another riveting post...completely lacking any credible links/scientific resources/educational institutions etc.....par for the course it seems....ROFLMAO....
Who am I to dispute the wisdom of ancient civilizations?
Perhaps where the legs, tail and head fit inside the shell are really black holes and we are riding between 6 of these black holes which go into worm holes coming outside the shell. If we could venture to the black hole we might journey from the tail to the head or one of the four legs. Maybe the ancients are onto something. We are riding on the shoulders of Ancient Turtles. Knowledge is...
The last video from "The Universe" about "Parallel Universes" was on the History Channel last night.
Squabbles over different views about cosmological models seem to pop in and out of existence from time to time like quantum particles. LOL! A classic argument from the past was Sir Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory of an eternal universe vs the newer (at the time) Big Bang theory of the universe. Hoyle's argument seemed to lean more toward suggesting that the observable universe is all there is, and that its size may be infinite but still contained within our universe. Although Hoyle may have erred in assuming that the universe has always existed, he may have been sort of on the right track. The difference being that what we call our universe is only a tiny part of a vastly greater system of other clusters the size of our universe, but are just too far to detect.
We know that space seems to be expanding at faster rates, rather than slowing down. Space itself may be infinite in size, and containing perhaps an infinite number of universe-sized clusters, some of which may be similar to our own. That kind of falls into the view I've suggested that it's possible our "universe" might be part of an infinite-sized megaverse. It would not negate Big Bangs as the beginning of universes from such a scenario.
Interestingly, the WMAP view of the universe shows the shape of the universe to be geometrically flat. Dr. Michio Kaku comments about the view that the universe might not be flat at all, but more like an expanding bubble, except that the "bubble" is so incredibly vast that it only looks flat to us. That's certainly possible. He also suggests that there could be other universes with copies of you and I, right next to us, but are invisible to us because they are dimensionally separated, even if only by a tiny fraction of an inch. If that's the case, then the large colliders might be able to detect gravitons vanishing into another dimension. Such a detection would be to note slightly less energy released from colliding particles than would be otherwise expected. It'll be interesting to see what develops from such experiments.
Since we don't know everything about the universe, or how and why it exists at all, anything is possible. What seems apparent though is that the universe is a very strange place.
I can see Alan Guth's view as making sense because if we consider that the farthest objects in the universe are also objects that were closer in time to the Big Bang, then the period of inflation would have been even closer to the Big Bang than those objects. In effect, putting those objects and inflation near the "edge" of the universe. That's not to say the universe has an edge. There is no real edge. The expansion is of space itself. That said, it would seem like the inflation would be growing more distant with the passage of time. From a practical point of view, it could be said the inflation would go on forever. But I'm more inclined to think it would ultimately fade away and dissipate into nothing rather than actually go on forever.
I like Guth's explanation because it solves many discrepancies that we have discussed before.....Such as Inflation also helping to explain the vast distances now given even our "local" Universe/Bubble of 45 plus Billion light years.
Inflation makes this scenario much more plausible in my mind and may also explain why gravity appears to be a much weaker force than most theorists have predicted. Inflation itself may have "stretched" the gravitional force. Along with Branes also accounting for gravity's relative weakness by sharing Gravity betyween Universes.
Remembering that Branes are essentially the "edge" of bubbles IMHO...it all seems much clearer in my mind and I believe the Cosmologists are now correct in their perception of the Cosmos with the Multiverse Theory...Beginning with The Big Bang and Inflation; probably iniated by a Brane collision.
We had discussed the possibility of Inflation accounting for the newer estimates of our Universe's increased size in an earlier thread...so we too were on the right track, along with Guth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
