Big Bang Discovery Opens Doors To The Multiverse

[bornagainathiest]

 

http://www.nature.com/news/gravitational-wave-team-admits-findings-could-amount-to-dust-1.15440

Why does Ron Cowen, author of the linked post, say that the theory of Cosmic Inflation is "popular but outlandish"?

 

 

Ultimately, only Ron Cowen knows.

 

But when you think about it F, there's absolutely nothing in our everyday, common sense, down-to-earth lives that can prepare us for what Inflationary theory tells us.  So, in that sense Yes, Inflation is outlandish.  As outlandish as it gets.

 

Beyond this I'd only be speculating.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/new_telescopes_to_give_uc_san_diego_researchers_glimpse_of_the_beginning_of

 

Let's hope these guys learn from BICEP's mistakes!

[bornagainathiest]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28127576

 

 

[Deidre]

Taken from the original link, Brother Jeff posted:

[Life, the Universe, and Everything

The multiverse may even help explain one of the more vexing paradoxes about our world, sometimes called the "anthropic" principle: the fact that we are here to observe it.

To cosmologists, our universe looks disturbingly fine-tuned for life. Without its Goldilocks-perfect alignment of the physical constants—everything from the strength of the force attaching electrons to atoms to the relative weakness of gravity—planets and suns, biochemistry, and life itself would be impossible. Atoms wouldn't stick together in a universe with more than four dimensions, Guth notes.]

 

Bolded part by me.

 

Thought that was an interesting choice of words for scientists...''disturbingly.''

 

Reading the other contributions in this thread beyond that link, science is fascinating!

[DoubtingNate]

It would be much preferable if new, testable models were developed.

 

 

It sure would!

 

Any physicist worth their credentials will probably agree that this is very very murky territory and there is much more work to be done.  We may not have anything solid within our lifetimes, but it is always fascinating to see updates on what work is being done.

[bornagainathiest]

Here's a good overview of the current situation re: B-mode polarization.

 

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/big-bang-inflation-evidence-inconclusive/

 

Please maintain a holding pattern until the Planck team are ready... Dec 1 at the latest.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Neverlandrut]

Taken from the original link, Brother Jeff posted:

 

[Life, the Universe, and Everything

 

The multiverse may even help explain one of the more vexing paradoxes about our world, sometimes called the "anthropic" principle: the fact that we are here to observe it.

 

To cosmologists, our universe looks disturbingly fine-tuned for life. Without its Goldilocks-perfect alignment of the physical constants—everything from the strength of the force attaching electrons to atoms to the relative weakness of gravity—planets and suns, biochemistry, and life itself would be impossible. Atoms wouldn't stick together in a universe with more than four dimensions, Guth notes.]

 

Bolded part by me.

 

Thought that was an interesting choice of words for scientists...''disturbingly.''

 

Reading the other contributions in this thread beyond that link, science is fascinating!

I'm not a cosmologist, but I like to throw in my two cents when a hint of the teleological argument rears it's head.

 

The universe may very well APPEAR designed from our extremely limited and ego centric point of view in the universe. But people should bare in mind that many aspects of the physical world once APPEARED a certain way to EVERYONE, but were later found to be something else. The world APPEARS flat. But further observation and evidence has shown it to be the very opposite of flat, a sphere! If the truth can be opposite of our impressions, then the universe could be completely non-designed even though it appears designed.

 

Subjective impression is never evidence of anything, even if the majority thinks so.

[hereticzero]

I like the idea of a multiverse, different universes. I wish we didn't live in the stupid one.

 

[Thought2Much]

And... it's looking even worse for the BICEP2 results with the latest Planck data: Ripples from dawn of creation vanish in a puff of dust

[Sexton Blake]

If you can have one universe, you can have more universes though they may be so far away that we may never ever be able to see them.

 

As to the Big Bang Idea, run back the expanding Universe in your mind. It gets smaller and smaller till while still fairly large, it hits black hole density.

 

Black holes do not expand.

 

So with the alleged inflation stopping when the Universe is about cricket ball size, we have the grand daddy of all black holes containing all the matter in the Universe.

 

How does it get any bigger than that? Science says it cannot.

[bornagainathiest]

If you can have one universe, you can have more universes though they may be so far away that we may never ever be able to see them.

 

As to the Big Bang Idea, run back the expanding Universe in your mind. It gets smaller and smaller till while still fairly large, it hits black hole density.

 

Black holes do not expand.

 

So with the alleged inflation stopping when the Universe is about cricket ball size, we have the grand daddy of all black holes containing all the matter in the Universe.

 

How does it get any bigger than that? Science says it cannot.

 

We've covered this Sexton, here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62389-a-christian-framework/page-6#.VDLnKfldUul

[bornagainathiest]

Posts # 115 (Hawking) and 117(Guth), to be exact.

[Neverlandrut]

If you can have one universe, you can have more universes though they may be so far away that we may never ever be able to see them.

 

As to the Big Bang Idea, run back the expanding Universe in your mind. It gets smaller and smaller till while still fairly large, it hits black hole density.

 

Black holes do not expand.

 

So with the alleged inflation stopping when the Universe is about cricket ball size, we have the grand daddy of all black holes containing all the matter in the Universe.

 

How does it get any bigger than that? Science says it cannot.

I thought Hawking proved black holes can expand. That was when two black holes collide, I think.

[bornagainathiest]

Not quite Neverlandrut.
 
It was Hawking who theorized that black holes can shrink (lose mass) by emitting Hawking radiation and then ultimately, vanish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
 
They can also grow (gain mass) by swallowing up matter or by merging (coalescing) with another black hole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_black_hole
.

.

.

Fyi, the black hole some people (mistakenly) assume caused the Big Bang isn't a black hole at all.

For a while it was thought to be a White Hole but now it's considered to an illusion generated by our inaccurate math.

 

Firstly, aside from Hawking radiation, black holes ordinarily swallow up matter and energy - they never emit these things.  Therefore, the Big Bang black hole (also called the initial singularity) couldn't have 'banged' and caused the universe to exist.  Hawking realized this decades ago and speculated that the initial singularity was, in fact, a White Hole.  (Please go to the thread, 'Cosmology 101 ...for 1AcceptingAthiest1', on page 3 of the Lion's Den, where I explain further.)

 

Secondly, the reason why the Big Bang isn't considered to have been caused by a singularity is because a complete theory of our universe's origin must incorporate General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.  Using only the math of GR yields an initial singularity.  Therefore, this must be an incomplete understanding of what really happened.  Nowadays many cosmologists suspect that the initial singularity (the Big Bang black hole) is a mathematical artefact that will disappear when GR and quantum physics are properly integrated into a single, all-encompassing theory.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[Neverlandrut]

Not quite Neverlandrut.

 

It was Hawking who theorized that black holes can shrink (lose mass) by emitting Hawking radiation and then ultimately, vanish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

 

They can also grow (gain mass) by swallowing up matter or by merging (coalescing) with another black hole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_black_hole

.

.

.

Fyi, the black hole some people (mistakenly) assume caused the Big Bang isn't a black hole at all.

For a while it was thought to be a White Hole but now it's considered to an illusion generated by our inaccurate math.

 

Firstly, aside from Hawking radiation, black holes ordinarily swallow up matter and energy - they never emit these things. Therefore, the Big Bang black hole (also called the initial singularity) couldn't have 'banged' and caused the universe to exist. Hawking realized this decades ago and speculated that the initial singularity was, in fact, a White Hole. (Please go to the thread, 'Cosmology 101 ...for 1AcceptingAthiest1', on page 3 of the Lion's Den, where I explain further.)

 

Secondly, the reason why the Big Bang isn't considered to have been caused by a singularity is because a complete theory of our universe's origin must incorporate General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Using only the math of GR yields an initial singularity. Therefore, this must be an incomplete understanding of what really happened. Nowadays many cosmologists suspect that the initial singularity (the Big Bang black hole) is a mathematical artefact that will disappear when GR and quantum physics are properly integrated into a single, all-encompassing theory.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

That is helpful. Thank you. So, if I understand correctly, black holes can increase in mass by absorbing matter but cannot increase in area? If they could, I suppose that would nullify their description as a singularity.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Not quite Neverlandrut.

 

It was Hawking who theorized that black holes can shrink (lose mass) by emitting Hawking radiation and then ultimately, vanish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

 

They can also grow (gain mass) by swallowing up matter or by merging (coalescing) with another black hole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_black_hole

.

.

.

Fyi, the black hole some people (mistakenly) assume caused the Big Bang isn't a black hole at all.

For a while it was thought to be a White Hole but now it's considered to an illusion generated by our inaccurate math.

 

Firstly, aside from Hawking radiation, black holes ordinarily swallow up matter and energy - they never emit these things. Therefore, the Big Bang black hole (also called the initial singularity) couldn't have 'banged' and caused the universe to exist. Hawking realized this decades ago and speculated that the initial singularity was, in fact, a White Hole. (Please go to the thread, 'Cosmology 101 ...for 1AcceptingAthiest1', on page 3 of the Lion's Den, where I explain further.)

 

Secondly, the reason why the Big Bang isn't considered to have been caused by a singularity is because a complete theory of our universe's origin must incorporate General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Using only the math of GR yields an initial singularity. Therefore, this must be an incomplete understanding of what really happened. Nowadays many cosmologists suspect that the initial singularity (the Big Bang black hole) is a mathematical artefact that will disappear when GR and quantum physics are properly integrated into a single, all-encompassing theory.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

That is helpful. Thank you. So, if I understand correctly, black holes can increase in mass by absorbing matter but cannot increase in area? If they could, I suppose that would nullify their description as a singularity.

 

 

As I understand it N, as a black hole increases in mass, the surface area of it's event horizon (a kind of boundary) increases.  The singularity at the center of the event horizon remains unaffected. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

 

Here's a helpful graphic.

Please ignore the math and the text in the blue boxes.  The yellow stuff is all you really need.

 

 

And here's a helpful FAQ page.

 

http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Neverlandrut]

Thanks BAA! This is fascinating stuff! It'll take me a while to digest it ????

[bornagainathiest]

The next generation of satellites to probe the origins of the universe are now in their proposal stages.

 

http://www.core-mission.org A proposed European Space Agency mission

 

http://litebird.jp/eng/  A proposed Japanese Space Agency mission

[bornagainathiest]

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/58927