Scientists May Have Found Evidence of Previous Universes

a reply to: Phage


WOW< DEMANDING MUCH?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

Theoretical is the operative word, good luck testing the hypothesis because any sort of meaningful measurement or observation is going to be an issue.

Still interesting all the same.

Maybe we could try spinning a sphere of lead, gold or uranium.

a reply to: stormcell

Do we not already have one of Iron?

But interest peaked how would a "spinning a sphere of lead, gold or uranium" help us measure what came before the existence of space-time?

originally posted by: howtonhawky
It is amazing what a simple letter can mean.
big bang
big bangs
One simple letter and a whole theory can be changed or even discounted.

The standard Big Bang Theory as it is today does not say anything either way about what, if anything, might have come before our current universe. It doesn't even tell us "what banged".

The Big Bang Theory only tries to explain how our universe developed immediately after its creation, and doesn't specifically make any claims that all of existence (in general) started with the Big Bang that created our universe, or if all of existence (in general) is larger in scope than just our universe.

That is to say, there is nothing in the current standard Big Bang theory that does not allow other universe to exist, either prior to ours or at the same time as ours.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
I applaud your efforts;

but me and my "better half" are sick of the political craziness and decided to post things more in keeping with the interests of everyone else who'd like to see something else!

Make ATS Great Again!

Linky to article:
PHYSICS-astronomy.com

Keep in mind that this is assuming that the Bing Bang really happened, black holes really do exist and that Hawking's radiation does happen as these are all just theories all with their own gamut of problems. If all of those theories accurately describe what does happen them maybe, just maybe this theory could be plausible. Personally I feel that this fails in the realm of sci-fi and if that's the case then it is an awesome idea.

The team wrote in their paper: “Though seemingly problematic for cosmic inflation, the existence of such anomalous points is an implication of conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC).
The model of a recycling universe is not without disagreement. Most of our proof proposes that the growth of the universe is accelerating, with the cosmos not being compact enough to compress back into a single point and inflate again – sometimes called the Big Bounce theory.

Cosmic inflation theory was thought to be proof in favor of the Big Bang. This appears to be a contradiction.

We've also yet to find any indication of Hawking radiation, let alone Hawking points. So while this is an stimulating theory, there's quite more work to do just yet before anyone goes about claiming the conclusive presence of a prior universe.

Saying "they have their work cut out for them" would be an understatement in my opinion.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

A supposition is not measurement or observation though.

We simply don't have the tools for the job to answer or even pose the question in any kind of meaningful context.....yet.

I mean we still cannot even observe 95/96% of our own universe, so answering what came before or if indeed there are other verses seems to be putting the cart before the horse given our lack of information.

a reply to: bally001

"Hawking points". I don't understand how a 'black hole' can release radiation. I consider this because I have always been taught that a black hole is so dense that nothing escapes.

Yes and this a big reason why I don't like the big bang theory.

I remember when it was thought that nothing escapes a black hole, not even light. Well, except for gravity, of coarse that escapes. Then there's Hawking's radiation, black body radiation that slowly dissipates black holes over time. Oh and an occasional gigantic burst of Gama rays, but that's okay because this is supposedly taking place before the event horizon. And speaking of event horizons how about the event horizon from a Universal singularity? So now we are led to believe that everything in the Universe came from a black hole, a giant universal black hole? Would that then make it a white hole? Not a hole but rather a Fuente Universal?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: howtonhawky
It is amazing what a simple letter can mean.
big bang
big bangs
One simple letter and a whole theory can be changed or even discounted.

The standard Big Bang Theory as it is today does not say anything either way about what, if anything, might have come before our current universe. It doesn't even tell us "what banged".

The Big Bang Theory only tries to explain how our universe developed immediately after its creation, and doesn't specifically make any claims that all of existence (in general) started with the Big Bang that created our universe, or if all of existence (in general) is larger in scope than just our universe.

That is to say, there is nothing in the current standard Big Bang theory that does not allow other universe to exist, either prior to ours or at the same time as ours.

That seems true but many accepted assumptions have come along with the theory over the years.

I do not think the theory is widely understood.

a reply to: Devino

"a giant universal black hole? Would that then make it a white hole?"

Perspective possibly, depending on what end you are observing from?

Judging by the mod edit and comment at the bottom of the OP, probably should have just fixed the caps problem before a mod had to. Sometimes trying to out-smug someone pointing out the obvious ain't worth it, you end up bit anyway.

As for the possibility to previous universes, the Big Crunch has been theorized for quite a while now. This theory is an intriguing one, but if they can find further evidence to support the idea, it's one more tiny puzzle piece in the gigantic puzzle picture toward understanding the structure of and rules of the universe. Stuff like that might not lead to any outright "Why Are We Here" answers, but it damn well could potentially open doors to other universes, or open the door to traversing this one faster than FTL tech can do.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

The standard Big Bang Theory as it is today does not say anything either way about what, if anything, might have come before our current universe. It doesn't even tell us "what banged".

Nor does it tell us how it banged.

The Big Bang Theory only tries to explain how our universe developed immediately after its creation,

How does all that mass escape the universal event horizon? One theory claims there was no gravity in the early Universe. How does that work, a gravitational singularity without gravity?

there is nothing in the current standard Big Bang theory that does not allow other universe to exist, either prior to ours or at the same time as ours.

I have always thought that is exactly what the theory predicts. Nothing prior to the big bang other than a single point of mass. No energy, mass, time. Not even space outside of this supposed Universal singularity. I like where you're going with this as I don't much care for the BBT but this seems to be stepping well outside of the original theory.

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: bally001
a reply to: Gothmog

Well, now you'll have me researching. Thanks for the info.

Kind regards,

bally

And a mathematician that produced the math that black holes CANNOT exist.

Really? I'm pretty sure they were able to directly observe the black hole at the center of the Milky Way this past year. I don't think their existence is theoretical anymore.

Black holes emit no light so one cannot be directly observed. What has been observed is thought to be the gravitational effects of observable mass around a black hole, stars and gas that appear to be orbiting a black hole.

This does look like stars are orbiting a large unseen mass yet is it a black hole? This is ten years of "painstaking measurements" that make up this 4 second video. I would definitely like to see more images/longer video.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Devino

"a giant universal black hole? Would that then make it a white hole?"

Perspective possibly, depending on what end you are observing from?

Sure, a white hole or Universal source.
It does seem confusing. Was it a gravitational singularity that contained all of the mass and energy that is present in the Universe for all time that somehow exploded into being? What was holding all this stuff together? Not gravity I gather since then how could it escape the event horizon (gravity is theorized to not exist in the early Universe)? And if not for gravity what could the force be that exploded all of this stuff out into being? It is because of problems like these that cause me to remain skeptical of the BBT.

a reply to: Devino

Well, it seems to be the best explanation to date, then there is the cosmic microwave background radiation which is apparently a remnant from the early stage of our universe in Big Bang cosmology, which supposedly adds some kind of validity to the whole affair.

In time i imagine we will supplement Big Bang theory with another or update the current notion of the original.

End of the day though there is no reason to imagine any new or modified theory will incorporate or allow us to understand what came before space-time, or at least the current iteration of such.

I'm skeptical myself all the same.

Something from nothing is rather hard to get one's head around but consider that energy jumps in and out of existence at the quantum scale all the time.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Devino

Well, it seems to be the best explanation to date,

I don't know if its the best with so many problems but it is the most widely accepted. Other than the problems I have posted so far the biggest one in my opinion is the faster than light expansion. The Hubble redshift seems to indicate that objects are farther away than the Universe is old, thus traveling faster than the speed of light. Could there be a problem with the Hubble as a constant?
Could the Hunt for Hubble's Constant Overturn the Standard Model of Cosmology?

Perhaps there is an intrinsic quality to the redshift of light that is observed from some objects, like Quasars.
Intrinsic Redshifts in Quasars and Galaxies

I feel the biggest problem is the failure to consider anything other then the Big Bang as a viable theory.

End of the day though there is no reason to imagine any new or modified theory will incorporate or allow us to understand what came before space-time, or at least the current iteration of such.

I believe that this is a philosophical question and one that cannot be answered by any field of physical science.

originally posted by: Nyiah
Judging by the mod edit and comment at the bottom of the OP, probably should have just fixed the caps problem before a mod had to. Sometimes trying to out-smug someone pointing out the obvious ain't worth it, you end up bit anyway.

As for the possibility to previous universes, the Big Crunch has been theorized for quite a while now. This theory is an intriguing one, but if they can find further evidence to support the idea, it's one more tiny puzzle piece in the gigantic puzzle picture toward understanding the structure of and rules of the universe. Stuff like that might not lead to any outright "Why Are We Here" answers, but it damn well could potentially open doors to other universes, or open the door to traversing this one faster than FTL tech can do.

Meh, when he mentioned it at first I was inclined to change it, but then he edited to add the "obnoxious" comment- which was completely uncalled for and IMO was in itself obnoxious. I don't put up with disrespect from anyone and I'm not about to start just because someone thinks they are the "end all, be all" on an anonymous internet forum even if I know the mods will change it eventually.

As far as the article goes it is a theory based on evidence that is also a theory so I take it with a grain of salt- but a grain with possibilities. All science fact is first hatched as an idea, which becomes a theory, and often much later is proven fact.

a reply to: Devino

"I believe that this is a philosophical question and one that cannot be answered by any field of physical science."

Yes, it is somewhat outside our comfort box, nevermind actual box, quite above our paygrade if truth be told.

Some questions will always be like that, i pitty a universe where we can know everything, as i imagine it to be rather boring.

As to the redshift and expansion, well its space(scale of space itself) that's apparently outpacing/expanding faster than light not matter, a load of questions there really, further study a definite requirement really.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

Just copied and pasted the title as is.

So what?

Fix it. It's obnoxious.

To YOU.

Fred..

##Attention Please##

ATS doesn't allow ALL CAPS titles because the topic should speak for itself.

The topic should be more interesting than sniping at each other.

Please stay on topic or find another one that catches your attention.

Don't reply to this post.