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.
"If you believe in science, like I do, you believe that there are certain [physical] laws that are always obeyed. If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence." - Hawking
The only other theory is continuous creation. I didn't think anyone believed that anymore.
Yeah, not too long ago it was argued that the universe was eternal and unchanging, and that the Big Bang model was nonsense. That was still the establishment view. Hoyle and a few cohorts were seriously stuck on that view. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1964 changed all that for most everyone.
Let's please not bring God into this since this is the Science forum and it is against forum rules to discuss religion. I would like the thread to remain open.
Just a little nitpick. The Big Bang does not really explain the way the Universe "began." It describes what must have been going on a fraction of a second after the very "beginning" (and thereafter). That beginning, at time zero, is unknown as to how it got started (or whether there was anything "before"). All scientists know about that very early time is that the Universe was very dense and very hot... and expanding. Such an environment can be duplicated, to an extent, using high-powered particle accelerators such as CERN. One of the key predictions of the theory is the abundance of the elements. The abundance of chemical elements in the universe is observed to be mainly hydrogen and helium. (Everything else amounts to about 2% of the total.) The Big Bang predicts the precise ratio of helium to hydrogen because the early Universe was only hot enough to fuse helium from hydrogen for a short amount of time (about 13 minutes) due to the expansion (which implies cooling).
Sorry, got carried away, lol. The Big Bang was not really an "explosion" since that implies it happened in an existing space. The BB was not an event IN space, but rather OF space.
And of course, to say the Universe was "created" is much too loaded of an expression (implying a Creator). That part is just unknown, so nothing can really be said about it (and scientists don't).
The interesting thing to consider is that if the universe is infinite in spatial extent, it was also like that even at the time of the Big Bang. I’m partial to the idea of eternal inflation, which suggests that our Big Bang was just one such event and there are other ones happening elsewhere at this moment, though they are too far for us to see.
I’m partial to the idea of eternal inflation, which suggests that our Big Bang was just one such event and there are other ones happening elsewhere at this moment, though they are too far for us to see....
Yes, that's an interesting (and pretty strange) hypothesis, well explained in the 2006 book Many Worlds in One by Alex Vilenkin. What is strange about it is that superluminal inflation is going on everywhere except for "bubbles" that spontaneously decayed from that FTL inflation into a more leisurely expansion, as exemplified by our particular "universe." As you say, other such bubbles are likely decaying as well, into their own universes with their own physical constants. We will never be able to detect such other bubble universes, however, since inflation is eternally going on between them.
Can the idea be tested? Falsified? Well, apparently there's something about the polarization of the CMB radiation that would either support the hypothesis... or not. IMO, the theory seems like a long way to go to provide an explanation for the Anthropic Principle.
Can the idea be tested? Falsified? Well, apparently there's something about the polarization of the CMB radiation that would either support the hypothesis... or not. IMO, the theory seems like a long way to go to provide an explanation for the Anthropic Principle.
That's the big problem with hypotheses like this. If it can't be tested, it isn't science. More like philosophical speculation based on science.
Yes, that's an interesting (and pretty strange) hypothesis, well explained in the 2006 book Many Worlds in One by Alex Vilenkin. What is strange about it is that superluminal inflation is going on everywhere except for "bubbles" that spontaneously decayed from that FTL inflation into a more leisurely expansion, as exemplified by our particular "universe." As you say, other such bubbles are likely decaying as well, into their own universes with their own physical constants. We will never be able to detect such other bubble universes, however, since inflation is eternally going on between them.
Can the idea be tested? Falsified? Well, apparently there's something about the polarization of the CMB radiation that would either support the hypothesis... or not. IMO, the theory seems like a long way to go to provide an explanation for the Anthropic Principle.
It’s a very strange hypothesis, yet it has a lot of support. I’m not sure whether it can actually be falsified, but so far inflation is the most popular explanation for the state of the early universe. If inflation still holds true, then the implications of eternal inflation are likely to hold true as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae
That's the big problem with hypotheses like this. If it can't be tested, it isn't science. More like philosophical speculation based on science.
That’s an interesting point. Some scientists argue that if certain hypotheses hold up, then the wider implications need to be considered as well, despite not being empirically verifiable. That’s the case with inflation.
NASA now says that JWT will have enough propellent to extend the telescope's usefulness beyond the initially projected ten year period because less propellent was needed for mid-course trajectory corrections.
NASA Says Webb’s Excess Fuel Likely to Extend its Lifetime Expectations
December 29, 2021
After a successful launch of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope Dec. 25, and completion of two mid-course correction maneuvers, the Webb team has analyzed its initial trajectory and determined the observatory should have enough propellant to allow support of science operations in orbit for significantly more than a 10-year science lifetime. (The minimum baseline for the mission is five years.)
The analysis shows that less propellant than originally planned for is needed to correct Webb’s trajectory toward its final orbit around the second Lagrange point known as L2,
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.
The Big Bang does not really explain the way the Universe "began." It describes what must have been going on a fraction of a second after the very "beginning" (and thereafter). That beginning, at time zero, is unknown as to how it got started (or whether there was anything "before"). All scientists know about that very early time is that the Universe was very dense and very hot... and expanding. Such an environment can be duplicated, to an extent, using high-powered particle accelerators such as 
