Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

The Ending Of The Big Bang? 24

Posted by Hemos from the it's-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it dept.
Pedrito writes "CNN is running a story here about a new theory that competes with the Big Bang. I figured it would already be up here. The theory goes that the universe "existed" before as a vacuous space, devoid of matter or energy. Two universes collided and the collision brought matter and energy to the void. The theory explains some things that the Big Bang doesn't. It's also partially based in String theory, of which I'm a big believer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Ending Of The Big Bang? More

The Ending Of The Big Bang?

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Interesting, but... (Score:3)

    by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Monday April 16, 2001 @06:54AM (#289135)
    The Big Bang theory always sounded too biblical to me. I mean one event from a single point exploding to create everything? We see relatively tiny bangs every day from novas and planetary death - I see no reason to think the Big Bang wasn't just a particularly large version of these daily occurences.

    The Big Bang was fundamentally different in a number of ways.

    Normal explosions involve moving a lot of matter and radiation around through space.

    The big bang involved a lot of matter *and* space coming out of nowhere as the result of a quantum fluctuation [to grossly oversimplify].

    Yes, there might be other big bangs "outside" the universe, but as both space and time exist only within the universe, we'd have no way of reaching hypothetical other universes [under the classic big bang model; other models propose bangs happening within a universe creating a new bubble of space and time, and other models propose one universe in which pockets undergo inflation and *look* like new universes from the inside.]

    Your local univerity's library should have a lot of information on the subject, filed under "cosmology".

  • Re:Interesting, but... (Score:4)

    by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Monday April 16, 2001 @09:34AM (#289136)
    Don't get me wrong...Mr. Hawking and his peers think more before breakfast than I do in an average year, but without falsifiable hypotheses, a lot of cosmology has more to do with faith than with fact. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but one has to realize it for what it is.

    Models of the universe's creation actually do produce a surprising number of testable predictions.

    We see space permeated by 3K blackbody radiation. The big bang model neatly explains this (the universe was once very hot and compact). Steady-state models don't. Scratch the steady-state models.

    We see a universe that is apparently geometrically "flat" (Euclidean). This eliminates a wide range of big bang models, and suggests (among other things) that the universe may have started with zero net energy (and thus be the result of a quantum fluctuation).

    We see matter clumping on a small scale, but amazingly uniform on a larger scale. The degree and patterns of clumping observed suggest a period of extremely rapid expansion while the universe was very small. Thus, the various inflationary models of the universe. Some produce predicted mass distributions that match the universe's; some don't. Scratch the ones that don't.

    Our models of physics at the extreme temperatures and densities that the universe looks like it had in its youth are not well-defined. Some options suggest that we'd get zillions of black holes permeating space. Do we see any? No, so scratch that range of physics models. Other options suggest gigantic artifacts like "cosmic strings" or "great walls". Do we see any? No walls, and strings are inconclusive (putting an upper limit on the number present, if any). This narrows the range of physical theories even more, which in turn gives us a better idea of how the universe would have behaved under early conditions, which lets us refine our predictions of what an old universe would look like under a given model, which lets us further prune models according to observations.

    In summary, while speculation indeed occurs, when a model is selected it's usually selected based on the testable predictions it makes.

    Again, a library search will turn up most of this.
  • "cosmology" differing from "astrology" only by the caliber of intellects that engage in mental masturbation on the topic. Don't get me wrong...Mr. Hawking and his peers think more before breakfast than I do in an average year, but without falsifiable hypotheses, a lot of cosmology has more to do with faith than with fact. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but one has to realize it for what it is.
  • "I figured it would already be up here."... right, perhaps even on slashdot [slashdot.org] just over a week ago. Considering a search on "Big Bang" turns it up, it doesn't seem as if anyone looked very hard. (you too, Hemos)
    --
  • "I figured it would already be up here."... right, perhaps even <A HREF="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/04/10/ 1812202">on slashdot</A> just over a week ago. Considering a search on "Big Bang" turns it up, it doesn't seem as if anyone looked very hard. (you too, Hemos)

    --
  • So you discard or accept theories based on how biblical they sound to you? As if the biblical account must be wrong.

    Sounds like an atheist desperately trying to justify his skepticism. I would be just as biased if I had decided to throw out steady-state theory just because it was unbiblical. I didn't need to, other evidence rules against it.

  • My understanding of this theory is that String Theory's ~11 dimensions existed as a sort of continuous omnipresent framework within which were at least two universes, which collided, producing matter as we know it.

    This theory posits that the spacetime fabric has always been there, and we're simply the byproduct of something contained within this fabric bumping into something else, like a cosmic static electricity spark. :)


  • They may not have upped it. My memory may be incorrect. That was why I used the ~ -- approximately eleven. :) Ten is approximately eleven so I suspect you are right. :)


  • a lot of cosmology has more to do with faith than with fact

    You are completely wrong, to state it bluntly. As Christopher Thomas has just mentioned, there are a lot of fact-based testible predictions, while faith has none. Simply because science cannot tell us with 100% certainty how the universe came to be, we do not require faith to examine the possibilities! The quote from the article says it all: "Steinhardt concedes that the theory explains the known universe as well as the Big Collision". Note the alarming lack of faith in the tone there? Compare that with a preacher who will tell you with a straight face that the earth was created 6000 years ago even though everything in the world screams that it is not so... see the difference between fact and faith? Faith takes a person to jump to certainly where there is no certainty to be had. Science at least can provide us with explanations based on facts and reasons that can be tested and predict future occurance. Don't confuse "cosmology" with "astrology" friend.. you'll find that there are a lot of differences to be had (tho sometimes astrology can be more fun!).

    -rt-
  • ...everyone always overlooks creation.

    Oh, I thought you said overclocks creation....

    Bingo Foo

    ---

  • Humm, big surprise that this got posted by an AC. If your gonna post could ya please register.

  • didn't I read this somewhere before [slashdot.org]?

    Come on, guys! Pay attention!

  • The truth about the story is much more mundane than CNN tried to make it sound. The primary proponante of this alternative came up with for the sole purpose of having an alternative should the Big Bang theory not work out, and cause he thinks the math involved is fun. The only advantage the Big Bump theory has over its predecessor is that space existed before hand and there is no need for some silly epoch of inflation. The nice thing about this is it attacks the big bang at a point of uncertainty and should make predictions that are quite different. I would think that the two theories would have quite different predictions about what the cosmic background radiation's fine scale structure would look like, for instance. Right or wrong, at least it's a good theory.
  • Peter Clark did say, "Look upon what has been wrought. A work of convenience. It shall be known unto man as 'religion'." And all was good. Amen.

    I suppose I can see how one might get that impression. But that's not really what the theory is about. It's a spare theory in case we break the current better theory. Sure, you can't drive the The Big Bump faster than 35 mph, or more than 100 miles; but it is better than having to walk to the nearest accredited cosmological institution. Oddly enough, the theory is specific enough in its assumptions, that it should produce quite different predictions that are testable not only through future observations, but even through projects like COBE.

    The COBE homepage [lbl.gov]

    Pictures of the ashes of the fires of creation [chaosmos.com]

    Woo early web based learning from MIT (umm Harvard). [mit.edu]
    Acctual instruction is left as an exercise for the reader.

    Early results seem to support inflation IIRC, but I'm not a cosmotologist either. While I know you're not one, I was curious as to what you think the future of nail polish for men is? And I'm not talking about just Carson Daley BTW. I kid cause we're good like that.

  • Most weird hypotheses of the comos, such as wormholes and black holes, owe their weirdness not to the strangeness of nature but to the belief among celebrated physicists like Sir Stephen Hawking and Dr. Kip Thorne that spacetime exists physically and that bodies are moving along a time dimension. Problem is, nothing can move in spacetime.

    This nasty little truth is known by many physicists and is being kept under wrap by the physics community. If it came out in the open, it would make some of the most celebrated physicists in the world look like crackpots at best and frauds at worst.

    Nasty Little Truth [gte.net]
  • Current models of creation do not really allow for information prior to creation to move forward into the current reality. Therefore, no information on what actually happend prior to the initial incident of creation.
  • >"The opposite sides of the universe have not had >enough time to communicate with each other. Yet >throughout the sky we find the universe to be >extraordinarily homogeneous," Steinhardt said. >It is as if two chefs on opposite sides of the >Earth inadvertently cooked up the exact same >dish. >"You would think that they cheated to come up >with exactly the same thing," he said. Hmm, sounds sort of like God. But of course, scientists can't believe in stuff like that...
  • From whence did the other two universes come?
  • Convinient. IANAC (I am not a cosmotologist), but the Big Bang theory seems to have some problems with it, as others have posted above. So what better way to avoid sticky issues like, "How did it all begin?" by putting it all out of reach? I'm not saying this is a grand conspiracy, mind you. Just something convinient that I might do if I was tired of beating my head against a blackboard at three o'clock in the morning. :)

    :Peter

  • I have heard that a even though the "The Big Bang" might not have created the universe there have been speculations that it could have sparked life in our planet and/or others. (Unlike other big bangs created when Taco Bell employees put too much beans on my bean burrito, which would have the opposite effect)
  • Although this sounds like an interesting alternative to the Big Bang, bringing up multiple universes raises a whole host of other questions. Once other factors like this are taken into account, many other scenarios can be constructed. However, The Big Bang is still the simplest solution.

    String theory was a nice step in trying to unify the various forces, just as dark matter was a nice step in trying to clear up our current astronomical measurements. However, it is not clear in either case yet whether we have made actual discoveries, or just invented a theory to match our current data. We know so little at the moment that neither one really has the sort of status as a theory that, for example, "The Big Bang" does. And even that is far less certain than, say, Kepler's Laws.

    So although this is a nice postulate, and more information may come to the fore supporting it in the future, remember that nothing in science is really ever certain. All of this is relatively new science, but hopefully we will make substantial progress answering these questions in the next decade, or century.
  • The Big Bang theory always sounded too biblical to me. I mean one event from a single point exploding to create everything? We see relatively tiny bangs every day from novas and planetary death - I see no reason to think the Big Bang wasn't just a particularly large version of these daily occurences.

    Big Bang really did feel too biblical for my liking.

  • It sounded too picturesque to be believable, and, when we're talking about the formation of the universe, yes, biblical.
  • Problem: even Big Bang reeks of infinite recursion. The same rules about not being able to say anyting, or really caring (in a scientific sense) much, about what happens before the Big Bang also apply to the "rubber sheets floating in 5th dimensional space-time-whatever" theory. Occam's razor only applies if you have two theories with identical features, save their complexity. The big collision theory has explanatory power that the Big Bang does not have (such as, explaining the lack of monopoles), and therefore trying to shave it off ala Occam is premature.

Slashdot Top Deals

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Close