Scientists glimpse universe before the Big Bang

Nov 23, 2010 by Lisa Zyga weblog
Black hole encounters would have repeated themselves several times, with the center of each event remaining at almost exactly the same point in the CMB sky, even when occurring in different aeons. The huge amounts of energy released would appear as spherical, low-variance radiation bursts in the CMB. Image credit: Gurzadyan and Penrose.

(PhysOrg.com) -- In general, asking what happened before the Big Bang is not really considered a science question. According to Big Bang theory, time did not even exist before this point roughly 13.7 billion years ago. But now, Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan from the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia have found an effect in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that allows them to "see through" the Big Bang into what came before.

The CMB is the radiation that exists everywhere in the universe, thought to be left over from when the universe was only 300,000 years old. In the early 1990s, scientists discovered that the CMB temperature has anisotropies, meaning that the temperature fluctuates at the level of about 1 part in 100,000. These fluctuations provide one of the strongest pieces of observational evidence for the Big Bang theory, since the tiny fluctuations are thought to have grown into the large-scale structures we see today. Importantly, these fluctuations are considered to be random due to the period of inflation that is thought to have occurred in the fraction of a second after the Big Bang, which made the radiation nearly uniform.

However, Penrose and Gurzadyan have now discovered concentric circles within the CMB in which the temperature variation is much lower than expected, implying that CMB anisotropies are not completely random. The scientists think that these circles stem from the results of collisions between supermassive black holes that released huge, mostly isotropic bursts of energy. The bursts have much more energy than the normal local variations in temperature. The strange part is that the scientists calculated that some of the larger of these nearly isotropic circles must have occurred before the time of the Big Bang.

The discovery doesn't suggest that there wasn't a Big Bang - rather, it supports the idea that there could have been many of them. The scientists explain that the CMB circles support the possibility that we live in a cyclic universe, in which the end of one “aeon” or universe triggers another that starts another aeon, and the process repeats indefinitely. The black hole encounters that caused the circles likely occurred within the later stages of the aeon right before ours, according to the scientists.

In the past, Penrose has investigated cyclic cosmology models because he has noticed another shortcoming of the much more widely accepted inflationary theory: it cannot explain why there was such low entropy at the beginning of the universe. The low entropy state (or high degree of order) was essential for making complex matter possible. The cyclic cosmology idea is that, when a universe expands to its full extent, black holes will evaporate and all the information they contain will somehow vanish, removing entropy from the . At this point, a new aeon with a low entropy state will begin.

Because of the great significance of these little circles, the scientists will do further work to confirm their existence and see which models can best explain them. Already, Penrose and Gurzadyan used data from two experiments - WMAP and BOOMERanG98 - to detect the circles and eliminate the possibility of an instrumental cause for the effects. But even if the circles really do stem from sources in a pre-Big Bang era, cyclic cosmology may not offer the best explanation for them. Among its challenges, cyclic cosmology still needs to explain the vast shift of scale between aeons, as well as why it requires all particles to lose their mass at some point in the future.

Explore further: A two-stage trap for single protons leads to measurement of their magnetic properties

More information: V.G.Gurzadyan and R.Penrose. "Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity." arXiv:1011.3706v1
via: Physics World

Related Stories

Planck Satellite ready to measure the Big Bang

May 11, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The last tests of the Ariane 5 rocket system have been finished and ESA's Planck satellite is sitting ready for launch at the Guiana Space Centre in Kourou. Together with ESA's space telescope ...

Cosmologists aim to observe first moments of universe

Feb 16, 2009

During the next decade, a delicate measurement of primordial light could reveal convincing evidence for the popular cosmic inflation theory, which proposes that a random, microscopic density fluctuation in ...

Probing the dark side of the universe

May 20, 2010

Advancing into the next frontier in astrophysics and cosmology depends on our ability to detect the presence of a particular type of wave in space, a primordial gravitational wave. Much like ripples moving ...

Durham astronomers' doubts about the 'dark side'

Jun 14, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- New research by astronomers in the Physics Department at Durham University suggests that the conventional wisdom about the content of the Universe may be wrong. Graduate student Utane Sawangwit ...

Recommended for you

50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet installed at Fermilab

Jul 31, 2014

One year ago, the 50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet arrived at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois after traveling 3,200 miles over land and sea from Long Island, ...

User comments : 174

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

pablommadies
1 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2010
si la temperatura del universo se mantiene hay energia que se mantiene por lo tanto hay masa del big bang anterior que quedo en e espacio en forma de energia segun la teoria de la relatividad , no seria muy razonable pensar que podria existir un nuevo big bang si no esta toda a materia nuevamente en un solo punto, por otra parte el tiempo es independiente del espacio, aunque no alla movimiento, el tiempo existe igual, si hay distintos big bang existe tiempo entre lo eventos....si la materia es la misma en el origen es probable, no necesariamente, pero probable que el universo vuelva a ser exactamente el mismo que el anterior.....si se perdio energia es probable que la explosion no vuelva a ocurrir.....dado que es probable que se necesite determinada masa para que ocurra la explosion ya que se necesita determinada masa para que explote una supernova o se forme el horizonte de sucesos en un agujero negro.
pablommadies
1 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2010
if the temperature of the universe is energy that is maintained is maintained so there is mass of the big bang and before that was left in space in the form of energy according to the theory of relativity, it would be very reasonable to think that could be a new big bang if not all a matter again at one point, second time is independent of space, though no movement beyond the time there as if there are several big bang time between events there .... if the matter is same at the origin is probable, not necessarily, but likely to return the universe to be exactly the same as above ..... if it lost energy is likely that the explosion will not happen again as it is ..... likely to be needed for certain mass explosion occurs and it takes a certain mass to explode a supernova or the event horizon form a black hole
CreepyD
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2010
This is quite funny as something extremely similar to this idea was talked about in sci-fi show Stargate Universe during last weeks episode :)
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2010
This is quite funny as something extremely similar to this idea was talked about in sci-fi show Stargate Universe during last weeks episode :)
No, SG:U was talking about an ordered intelligence that existed before and broadcast a signal or created the universe and emitted a broadcast signal.

I'm very intrigued with this research. If it pans out this is a feather in Turok's cap.
_ilbud
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2010
Yeah that's extremely similar to the SG Universe idea. Even if S_H didn't pay attention again.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (31) Nov 23, 2010
Regarding the double circle feature, it's well known dark matter structures appear like foam. After then we can expect, some of bubbles of this foam will overlap - it would mean, such observation doesn't prove anything specific regarding history of Universe, because it's just accidental. Maybe later we find some more conclusive evidence for Penrose's model.

The problem rather is, at general scale such model cannot work from simple reason. There is no evidence, our place of Universe is just the youngest one. So, every sufficiently distant observer should see the very same picture: after then just our piece of Universe would appear like colliding bubble from distance and the same picture would appear form all places of our Universe.

These nice models are simply violating Copernican principle. They could still work for smaller objects (black holes) - but not at the universe scale. So I'm considering them rather as an artefacts of light dispersion at large distances.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2010
Yeah that's extremely similar to the SG Universe idea. Even if S_H didn't pay attention again.

I suggest you watch it again.
jscroft
2 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2010
Looks like a bullseye to me.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2010
This is quite funny as something extremely similar to this idea was talked about in sci-fi show Stargate Universe during last weeks episode :)

I thought the same thing. Of course, in the show, they found something in the CMB that suggested intelligence. But still, it did remind me of the show.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (11) Nov 23, 2010
THIS is the kind of science article I wait patiently for.
resinoth
5 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2010
I'd pay tax to penrose
Jarek
not rated yet Nov 23, 2010
While considering such Big Bounces, we have to remember about CPT conservation - Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation says that such collapse of our Universe is Big Bang for anti-universe ...
Here is larger discussion: http://physicswor...ws/44388
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (14) Nov 23, 2010
1. SH is right about the SGU episode...

2. Is there a theory here I missed? Is there a mechanism proposed for this "cyclic universe whatchamathingy" they're proposing?

What? All the black holes evaporate and all the sudden POOF, new big bang? Excuse me? Not a whole hell of a lot of science I'm seeing here...
DanV
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2010
CCC is not the best option. An alternative model is introduced, named: TTM, which stands for Twin-Tori Model, being a double torus for the universe. Read: darkfieldnavigator.com. Hopefully Physorg.com will publish aboutit. Read my profile.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (21) Nov 23, 2010
THIS is the kind of science article I wait patiently for... I'd pay tax to Penrose...
No one prohibits you from sending little Christmas gift to Mr. Penrose..;-) But frankly, I've still problem with his model - as I cannot imagine, why/how previous generation of Universe should manifest itself with concentric rings in CMB on the sky. If the history of Universe is cyclic in more general linear time, then the ratio of circles would be virtually incomparable. Actually Universe appears nested up to certain level like fractal, so we can observe concentric rings of dark matter around centre of galaxies and around galaxies itself - but this is apparently not, what Mr. Penrose is talking about.

If the repeated expansion of Universe would occur in reverse time, then the circles could be roughly of the same diameter, but the left diagram on the above picture would appear completely different.
sstritt
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2010
Roger Penrose! So many monumental contributions to physics over so long a career!
Bitflux
5 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2010
Ooh my.. cropcircles!

Just kidding - very exciting discovery
Damon_Hastings
5 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2010
Modernmystic says:

What? All the black holes evaporate and all the sudden POOF, new big bang? Excuse me? Not a whole hell of a lot of science I'm seeing here...

I agree. This article did a crappy job of explaining the underlying concepts. Hopefully the source paper published by Penrose et al was more coherent.
Auxon
3 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2010
Well, it's like SGU, but not completely. They don't imply cyclic universes in SGU, but order hidden within the CMB. "However, Penrose and Gurzadyan have now discovered concentric circles within the CMB in which the temperature variation is much lower than expected, implying that CMB anisotropies are not completely random." That's is, the CMB anisotropies are not completely random ... which in the SGU interpretation implies a possible intelligence.
Javinator
5 / 5 (13) Nov 23, 2010
Regarding the double circle feature, it's well known dark matter structures appear like foam.


No. It's not well known. Dark matter itself is not well known so how could dark matter structures be well known?
Damon_Hastings
4.6 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2010
Regarding the double circle feature, it's well known dark matter structures appear like foam. After then we can expect, some of bubbles of this foam will overlap

If you're envisioning two dark matter "bubbles" overlapping to create the bullseye shape, you should know that bubbles in foam are not spherical. Most are highly nonspherical. Likewise with the void spots in the "foam" model of dark matter.

Moreover, we're talking about CMB here, not dark matter. Unless you're saying that dark matter emits the CMB...? That would be a novel claim!
dnatwork
2 / 5 (5) Nov 23, 2010
I'm with KwasniczJ here. The image looks like annular rings around the moon. If the CMB can be considered "atmosphere-like," then perhaps they are seeing what amounts to a rainbow from an extremely distant and bright object, rather than ripples in the CMB pond.

Anyway, we should be able to test this cyclic universe thing in the next day or so. Modernmystic just agreed with Skeptic_Heretic on something.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2010
Modernmystic just agreed with Skeptic_Heretic on something.
Happens quite often, we're both libertarians by definition.

then perhaps they are seeing what amounts to a rainbow from an extremely distant and bright object, rather than ripples in the CMB pond.
Can you explain what you mean by this? Either I'm wildly misunderstanding what you mean by a rainbow like effect or you're insinuating that light could propagate prior to the CMB barrier event.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2010
I'm very intrigued with this research. If it pans out this is a feather in Turok's cap.
You're talking of Steinhardt's/Turok's Cyclic Model which arose out of their Ekpyrotic Model?

I'm indeed wondering why all of a sudden Penrose is attributed with the notion of a cyclic universe whereas the Ekpyrotic Model is known for ten years already (and wasn't the first one either).

The other thing I'm wondering about is why TV movies made for entertainment and profit are mentioned at all. Or did they develop a mathematical formalism in that SF series which implied a cyclic cosmology?
Skultch
1 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2010
Could these circles be from events in our neighbor brane? The Big Bang could have been a multi-stage event, and we just discovered a few earlier stages. I'm thinking of two branes touching each other to create our Universe. The initial touch is highly repellent and the circles are subsequent touches that react in the opposite direction of the initial repellent direction. The last touch is the same area as the first after a bounce back. From my extensive Science Channel M-Theory knowledge ;), the graphics they use somewhat looks like this.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2010
You're talking of Steinhardt's/Turok's Cyclic Model which arose out of their Ekpyrotic Model?
Indeed I am. This observation lends creedence to the braneworld hypothesis and a few of its derivative hypotheses.

If the big bang is an artifact of the collision of two branes this leads me into the logical assumption that gravity and dark energy are the result of the wobble of the branes post collision. A "flat" brane would be the natural state, leading to an attraction between another brane. Upon contact the resultant force results in singularity (due to geometry post-collision). Dark energy is then the rebound of the brane, attempting to re-flatten, while gravity becomes weaker and weaker over time, as predicted by extensions of quantum mechanics and string theory. This would solve the massless particle prediction in the advanced ages of the universe.

To the white board, there is math to be done.
ontheinternets
not rated yet Nov 23, 2010
If we overcome the challenges of operating in space and limitlessly scaling up use of energy, might we find a way to control the movement of black holes over billions of years in order to communicate a the presence of sentience to the inhabitants of the next aeon? It's unlikely.. but it may be interesting to someone to make a quick check that it seems to be inline with what would be expected from entropy alone. (or, rather than finding a message, it is a possibility that the echo of desperate attempts to stretch out remaining life at the end of the universe could be found)
Ober
5 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2010
I too thought of the SGU episode, in the fact that a non-random data set was encoded in the CMB.

So what about M-Theory???? M-Theory suggests that universes are like bed sheets hanging on a washing line. When the wind blows (perhaps leaky gravity), the two sheets can come in contact. The two sheets touch each other like a point source, which creates a big bang. Could the concentric circles in the CMB be like ripples in a pond when a stone is dropped in. ie, a point source disturbance caused by the point of contact of two universes in M-Theory?????
If this were the case I'd imagine there would be a mirror set of concentric rings in the other brane as well. So perhaps these rings could explain something about the other universe/brane which contacted ours????
jsa09
5 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2010
The current model of universe as stated in this article several times precludes anything prior to the Big Bang. What gets me is that the self same article that states time did not exist prior to the Big Bang then goes on to say that there was a previous Big Bang.

When could this have been? You cannot actually have something occur prior to the beginning of time.

So if we want to change the Big Bang theory I think a little bit more effort should be pointed in the direction of start of time correlation with the Big Bang.
Raygunner
not rated yet Nov 23, 2010
Did anyone notice the fine wavelets at the bottom of the largest circle? Is that an artifact of the data conversion process or another type of distortion imprinted on the CMB? Also, the circles are close to perfect as far as I can tell with a center "dot". Would an explosion (or event) result in a perfect circle? Seems like there would be some asymmetry. The central dot, inner and outer circles seem too evenly spaced to be natural. If we see GOD spelled out then I'm done!
DamienS
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2010
I agree. This article did a crappy job of explaining the underlying concepts. Hopefully the source paper published by Penrose et al was more coherent.

Here's another more informative take on the news (though still a pop piece):
http://www.univer...ig-bang/

And here's the paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706

It's exciting news, but I'm taking it with a pinch of salt at this stage for two reasons. The pattern needs to be confirmed to be real rather than an instrumentation artefact, and if real, I'm sure alternative proposals will be investigated. If I was a betting man, I'd say the effect isn't real, but I'd be ecstatic if it were!
nuge
5 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2010
NOW we're getting somewhere. Exciting times we live in.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
If we see GOD spelled out then I'm done!
Then you should replace your US-made equipment with China-made.
chandram
1 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2010
Bravo,the fine structure in anistropy of micro wave background radiation is being exploited to obtain explanations for the pre-existence of colliding early universes that eventually result in Big Bang start of a new universe. It seems a mixture of all the theories that have been put forward till now for the origin of the present universe. The steady state is being mixed with the turmoil of Big Bang, to solve the mystery of existence in a way that may appear as a fresh idea.
The problem lies with the precision with which we can conduct measurements in cosmology. One can pick and chose between options and then manipulate what we desire to prove. Prof Penrose is an authority but his junior author may have done most of the work being reported here.Does a correct balance exist in this report? To me it as subjective as the earlier studies, emphsizing the significance of Big Bang approach.Then there is 'consciousness' which may produced physical world, as per E. Klingman!
dnatwork
not rated yet Nov 24, 2010
then perhaps they are seeing what amounts to a rainbow from an extremely distant and bright object, rather than ripples in the CMB pond.
Can you explain what you mean by this? Either I'm wildly misunderstanding what you mean by a rainbow like effect or you're insinuating that light could propagate prior to the CMB barrier event.


Sorry, I think I should have said 22-degree halo (http://en.wikiped...°_halo). I remember it being called "annular ring" in astronomy in college, and I recall an image of the moon with two concentric rings around it. The outer ring would be a 46-degree halo?

Anyway, I did not mean that light would propagate prior to the Big Bang. I was suggesting that the CMB might somehow refract radiation, the way that ice crystals in the atmosphere refract light to produce rainbows and halos. That might not call for a source that pre-dates the Big Bang, as required by this theory of black hole collisions that produce spherical energy bursts.
A2G
1 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2010
The title of the paper is: "Concentric circles in WMAP data MAY provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity.

Even the paper's authors recognise that this MAY all be a bunch of BS. It looks like the data does show concentric circles. That is not the point. The cause for these concentric circles is pure speculation, there MAY be an entirely different explanation.

I know another researcher in Oxford who has shown far more real proof of the reason for these concentric circles in the WMAP data. He will be publishing his papers soon he promised. I have seen all his data and his experiments in his lab that back his theory up. I can't wait to see the reaction when he finally releases his papers. Far more proof in his corner than any other theory explaining the various structures in the universe. Especially concentric rings like these in the WMAP data. This guy actually forms them in the lab with real world materials using only passive magnetic fields. Very exciting stuff.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (21) Nov 24, 2010
bubbles in foam are not spherical. Most are highly nonspherical.
Actually I didn't see any evidence in the article, the structure observed it's a circle at all. Two slices of it aren't enough. The noise map analysis of the whole WMAP data would be useful. Maybe we would find many such concentric circles, which would render the whole evidence as unsubstantiated one.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2010
Anyway, I did not mean that light would propagate prior to the Big Bang. I was suggesting that the CMB might somehow refract radiation, the way that ice crystals in the atmosphere refract light to produce rainbows and halos.
Yes but how would radiation refract radiation?
I know another researcher in Oxford who has shown far more real proof of the reason for these concentric circles in the WMAP data.
Does "that guy at Oxford" have a name?
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (22) Nov 24, 2010
but how would radiation refract radiation?
Easily, because photons aren't radiation, i.e. pure wave - but a particles with nonzero curvature of surface.

You can imagine, CMB photons are in dynamic equilibrium with particle/antiparticle pairs, which is heavily biased towards bosons under normal circumstances. But at presence of EM field of electron it becomes shifted towards fermion pairs, which indeed slow down the electron spreading. Such interpretation doesn't violate quantum field theory - compare the derivation of GZK limit on the web.
gaosq0604
not rated yet Nov 24, 2010
Always think that the big bang theory theory is just a paradox. We cannot just easily, rashly and self-deceivingly ignore things happened before the bang!
seb
not rated yet Nov 24, 2010
Maybe this would also fit the recent odd theory that our universe exists inside of a massive black hole in some other universe?

That would allow for some "before the big bang" blackhole collisions, maybe causing some kind of ripples in the fabric of /somewhere/, until something is torn and the singularity of that black hole bursts through to a new universe, exploding violently and thus.. big bang..

Eh? Why not..
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (21) Nov 24, 2010
Maybe this would also fit the recent odd theory that our universe exists inside of a massive black hole in some other universe?..
IMO the main problem of such model is, it violates Copernican principle. The concept of cosmological horizont, which is observer dependent is IMO much more relevant and it requires less assumptions about underlying reality.

http://en.wikiped..._horizon

In addition, it fits the recent observations better.

http://www.spacer...id=14524
http://www.scienc...on2-2010
http://www.futuri...-modern/
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2010
How did these super-massive "isotropically exploding" black holes exist before the big bang anyway?

Where did their mass come from? Where did the space they existed in come from? What did they "explode into"? How did whatever they "exploded into" survive the big bang in any way that could convey such information without it being destroyed?

Branes colliding are not the same things as isotropic explosions from super-massive black holes....

Besides I'm not sure "Brane collisions" would be all that isotropic. But who the hell can honestly say. Have we ever "seen" a brane? Do we know how they act? What properties they have? Why would they collide at all? Even if they did why would it create an "explosion"? It's all just a "titch" too theoretical for me at the moment.
KwasniczJ
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 24, 2010
How did these super-massive "isotropically exploding" black holes exist before the big bang anyway? Where did their mass come from?

And where the initial singularity or colliding branes come from? The Big Bang theory or ekpyrotic model suffers with exactly the same conceptual problem.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2010
And where the initial singularity or colliding branes come from? The Big Bang theory or ekpyrotic model suffers with exactly the same conceptual problem.
Not really. When we're trying to describe the origin of the Universe we see, and can mathematically and observationally find an origin, that leads us to a new question, where did the origin of the origin come from?

If you want to say these models are no good, then provide yours.... oh wait, aether. So if the aether is responsible for everything, where did the aether come from?

See, that's how science works. It is a progression of steps. Don't like it? Go back to religion, where you can just make shit up as you go and stop at an arbitrary unquestionable uncaused cause.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2010
So, you have a scientific explanation as to how the hell you get super-massive black holes exploding before there was even mass in the universe then SH? Oh wait, how about even a universe or space for them to "explode into" and provide some kind of BS isotropic signature.

The whole fricken article sounds like a load of crap to me...
Gawad
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2010
I have to agree with posters such as DamienS & Modernmystic who feel like "hedging their bets" if I can put it that way. I think Penrose may well be onto something really interesting here, but I also think declaring these a sign of pre-big-bang events may be a tad premature. I'm definitely going to read the original paper but for now I do I have to say the claim is a little counter-intuitive. Even in the case of a bounce where a universe with similar physics pre-existed ours, the crunch goes to or very near to a singularity so I don't see how any such signals could survive such crunch. Alternatively, if, as is described above, the events that predate the big-bang occurred in a low entropy environment where spontaneous creation of a new universe becomes possible I can't imagine what would have produced them, what with the previous universe having wound down to such a low entropy state (not to mention that the events would have occurred outside the point of creation of our universe).
dnatwork
1 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2010
I was suggesting that the CMB might somehow refract radiation, the way that ice crystals in the atmosphere refract light to produce rainbows and halos.
Yes but how would radiation refract radiation?


I don't know, I'm not a physicist. How do magnetism and electricity interact? Is the CMB just free-floating radiation with no source, or was it originally emitted by some form of matter? Could that matter be the cause of refraction? I think it makes sense to look for a simpler explanation within the current model, i.e., one that does not entail seeing events from before the beginning of time.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2010
The universe having been described as "ringing like a bell" until the time of last scattering, I have to wonder if these might not be some form of "rogue wave" in the CMB. That is, if the signal is confirmed as real.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2010
So, you have a scientific explanation as to how the hell you get super-massive black holes exploding before there was even mass in the universe then SH? Oh wait, how about even a universe or space for them to "explode into" and provide some kind of BS isotropic signature.
There are currently several. Ekpyrotic theory, braneword theory, string field theory, etc.
The whole fricken article sounds like a load of crap to me...
The article is a statement of the theoretical frameworks that fit the observation, it also states explicitly that more review needs to be done before people can say "Yes, we've definitely found something".

We need to not assume that our universe is in fact a UNIverse, because we have no idea. Just like we shouldn't have assumed that Earth was the only planet in the Universe, because we've found that it wasn't.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2010
How do magnetism and electricity interact?
They don't, they semi repel each other. The induction of electricity is caused by an increase in magnetism and vice-versa. The LHC is seeing the responsible charge carrier behavior as following perpendicular lines of force. Effectively they don't interact, but they induce each other by orienting free flow into organized flow.
Is the CMB just free-floating radiation with no source, or was it originally emitted by some form of matter?
It was emitted by all matter. The CMB is the "wall". Basically in the early universe, when it was too hot, too dense, and smaller, light didn't propagate as it does today. If you were to look at the universe it would be a big opaque ball with little to no definition. As expansion occured the universe cooled. The exact point at which it cooled enough for light to propagate is the CMB. The CMB is the first free flowing light emitted by objects within the universe.
dtxx
1 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2010
It's Akira.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (12) Nov 24, 2010
There are currently several. Ekpyrotic theory, braneword theory, string field theory, etc.


How EXACTLY do any of these theories account for the existence of space, time, and matter prior to the big bang, and moreover how did any information they produce pass the singularity at the big bang?

It was emitted by all matter. The CMB is the "wall". Basically in the early universe, when it was too hot, too dense, and smaller, light didn't propagate as it does today. If you were to look at the universe it would be a big opaque ball with little to no definition. As expansion occured the universe cooled. The exact point at which it cooled enough for light to propagate is the CMB. The CMB is the first free flowing light emitted by objects within the universe.


Yes but the light from the CMB happened about 300,000 years AFTER the big bang. Where's the connection?

Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2010
How EXACTLY do any of these theories account for the existence of space, time, and matter prior to the big bang, and moreover how did any information they produce pass the singularity at the big bang?
You seem to be confusing the before with the after in this case. I don't blame you, they get complicated. These theories deal with the big bang, the bfore and the after, as well as the after us, and after the "degenerate age" portion of cosmology. I could explain them but 1k characters is no where near enough.
Yes but the light from the CMB happened about 300,000 years AFTER the big bang. Where's the connection?
You already know this, why are you asking the question if you already know better?

As I said above, too hot for light to propagate. Think tipping point.
tamang
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2010
I understand to rely on CMB to conjecture
how the universe (or whatever) it was before big bang is to rely on the present super natural explained phenomenon to predict what happens after people are dead like they go to hell or heaven.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2010
I understand to rely on CMB to conjecture
how the universe (or whatever) it was before big bang is to rely on the present super natural explained phenomenon to predict what happens after people are dead like they go to hell or heaven.

Added to the list Zephyr.
pascual_dejuan
not rated yet Nov 25, 2010
If a former universe can interact with the following one, then there are not two but only one single universe and one single spacetime with two stages linked through the big bang singularity, which by the way, should not be "so much singular" to hold such a spacetime continuity.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2010
In Brane theory there does not have to be a singularity to get the CMB and an expanding Universe. In which case time DID exist before whatever the heck produced hot gas that produced the radiation of the CMB.

Which is about the only thing I find interesting in Brane theory at the moment. Well it isn't a holographic universe either so that's a plus.

Ethelred
jmcanoy1860
5 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2010
Of course, the real question YEC's are attempting to ask about the universe "prior" to the BB is a never ending regression. What they want is to have a final beginning and for that beginning to be a sentient space jinn. Somehow the impossibility of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, extra-dimension, undetectable (yet interactive), doesn't faze them in the least. But scientists discussing M-theory or attempting to interpret data just drives them to fits. Oh LAWD no!!!
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2010
Somehow the impossibility of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, extra-dimension, undetectable (yet interactive), doesn't faze them in the least.
Once you assume omnipotence all the rest become possible. It is NOT impossible with that one given. Heck you can even say the god is ommipotent EXCEPT for not being able to contradict itself which is what the nuns told me was the case.

Don't get carried away with claims to support your position. False claims like that one just make it easier for the YECs and especially the OECs.

Yes, even "undetectable (yet interactive)" is possible IF you claim omnipotence. Of course Jehovah never looked omnipotent in the Bible but there are a number of Christian beliefs that are not Biblicaly based.

Ethelred
quixote7
5 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2010
I'm with some of the other commenters here who are asking why this isn't related to previous theories of cyclical universes. For instance, Steinhardt's brane theory (http://www.physic...gy.html) as others have mentioned, has been around for years. Penrose et al. would reference and explain how their theories tie in and/or differ. So, help the rest of us out :D. How do they relate?
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2010
The problem with all these models is, they're considering, our local place in universe is the youngest one, thus violating Copernican principle.
ChrisColes
1 / 5 (10) Nov 26, 2010
I asked an astronomy prof at the AAAS meeting at Nashville TN, 2003 to imagine we are in a room at the centre of Earth, surely we could stand upon any wall, ceiling or floor with our feet towards the surface and our heads at the very centre of all the mass where there would surely be a point where all the forces of gravity balance. He looked puzzled. So, now imagine we change the room into a lift and we press the "up" button and now we have risen, say, 1,000 miles and we can feel some gravity under our feet, yes?; so what about the mass still between us and the surface? Surely there must be a point where gravity from the mass above balances the gravity from the mass beneath us? And, in which case, surely, if gravity is towards the centre at the surface, and again, towards the surface at the centre, with balanced gravity effects between the surface and the centre, then it must also be quite impossible to create a singularity, and ergo, it must be impossible to have any sort of Big Bang.
ChrisColes
1 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2010
At that moment he very quickly stepped back from me fully three paces, red faced and looking very startled. I offered him a copy of my book but he refused. No! No! he said and he walked away looking very uncomfortable.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2010
First the answer should have been that what you said has nothing to do with making singularities go away.

I doubt that the event you claim actually occurred since in now way should that have phased any competent physics teacher.

Second what book?

Oh I see this isn't an actual comment by a clueless newbie, its SPAM to push a Crank book.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2010
And, in which case, surely, if gravity is towards the centre at the surface, and again, towards the surface at the centre, with balanced gravity effects between the surface and the centre, then it must also be quite impossible to create a singularity, and ergo, it must be impossible to have any sort of Big Bang.
Well this is wrong because you're ignoring force vectoring.
At that moment he very quickly stepped back from me fully three paces, red faced and looking very startled. I offered him a copy of my book but he refused. No! No! he said and he walked away looking very uncomfortable.
Strees reaction towards a conspiracy theorist most likely.

Other than that, your story is a lie.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2010
In Brane theory there does not have to be a singularity to get the CMB and an expanding Universe. In which case time DID exist before whatever the heck produced hot gas that produced the radiation of the CMB.

Which is about the only thing I find interesting in Brane theory at the moment.
Isn't the very elegant explanation for the weakness of gravity interesting, too?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2010
In Brane theory there does not have to be a singularity to get the CMB and an expanding Universe. In which case time DID exist before whatever the heck produced hot gas that produced the radiation of the CMB.

Which is about the only thing I find interesting in Brane theory at the moment.
Isn't the very elegant explanation for the weakness of gravity interesting, too?
Or the causal mechanics of impact and rebound providing the positive and negative energy balances observed within reality?
Burnerjack
not rated yet Nov 26, 2010
Can an event,any event occur without the conveyance of time? Some may pose the argument that the horizon between past and present is an illusion and all events past, present, and future are simultaneous.Although this may be philosophical in nature, it does portend to legitimate avenues of research into BB or no BB (?).
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2010
Isn't the very elegant explanation for the weakness of gravity interesting, too?
Intriguing BUT I have a feeling that ALL the QM based gravity theories are going at it completely wrong. How the heck do gravity carrying particles match up with warped space time? How do they fit the rocket with no windows thought experiment of Einstein?

I was looking at some posts on physicsforums.com about fictitious forces a while ago. My brain is a bit too fuzzy at the moment to really deal with them. May always be too fuzzy for that.

http://www.physic...?t=11706

And several others. This is the sort area where I suspect that Feynman's idea of Just Do the Math sort of falls apart. Just doing the math is not how Einstein came up with GR.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2010
Well I think you can look at gravity as a geometric problem.

I'd be one of the anomalous physicists who'll state that the Higgs boson, and by extension, Higgs field, most likely do not exist.

That leaves Feynman's statements intact, while allowing for Eistein's methodology to be accurate within Feynman's context.
OregonWind
5 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2010
For a well educated general reader, the short paper "Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity" from arXiv.org > astro-ph > arXiv:1011.3706 is actually quite accessible.
denet
2 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2010
The universe is a singularity by definition. It doesn't matter how "big" we think it is. Size is a fiction much in the same way as time. So the universe has not grown large it has just seen an increase in entropy. Eventually however as the universe "expands" to its limit all the entropy is lost by assimilation into black holes and we revert back to a low energy primordial state. But all the energy of the universe is not lost it is just converted into potential energy and re-emerges in what is observed as a big bang.
Cody_Furguson
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2010
This is such great news. I've spent years arguing the point that if black holes swallow up all matter in the Universe including each other, then the Universe would likely begin again with a new Big Bang. I also wondered (since no information is lost even in a black hole according to Stephen Hawking) if we shouldn't then be able to trace past incarnations of the Universe.

I also wonder if traces of each of these Universal Cycles could account for what we call "Alternate Dimensions"?

To me the Universe is starting to look like a vast computer that is simply crunching ALL the numbers there are to crunch. Anything that can be MUST be in some dimension or other past present or future. An Imagination Machine, if you will.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2010
The observations like this one could falsify both Big Bang model, both cyclic models of Universe easily.

http://www.physor...ung.html
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 27, 2010
The observations like this one could falsify both Big Bang model, both cyclic models of Universe easily.

http://www.physor...ung.html

How Zephyr? It's rather normal to think that the earliest galaxies, that formed when the stellar medium was the most dense would have the most matter, thereby being the largest.
ChrisColes
1 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2010
First the answer should have been that what you said has nothing to do with making singularities go away.

I doubt that the event you claim actually occurred since in now way should that have phased any competent physics teacher.

Second what book?

Oh I see this isn't an actual comment by a clueless newbie, its SPAM to push a Crank book.

Ethelred


My understanding is no one has described how gravity works, so no competent science teacher has sufficient information to argue otherwise.

The book? Spam? Well yes, but considering Scientific American allowed the statement "This opens the door to a new disruptive theory" (The last few lines in: The Extraordinary Deaths of Ordinary Stars, July 2004) yet has never named the theory or book.

Gravity is simply caused by electromagnetic force field attachments between all atoms. Anything on the surface of a mass is attached to it. Inside the mass the attachment forces are always towards the mass wherever it may be located.
Cody_Furguson
not rated yet Nov 27, 2010
ChrisColes stated: "No one has described how gravity works", but this could explain what gravity ultimately does. Gravity could simply be an "elastic" force meant to restore the singularity in order to allow more cycles of the Universe.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2010
My understanding is no one has described how gravity works, so no competent science teacher has sufficient information to argue otherwise.
Your understanding is wrong. Einstein did.
Well yes, but considering Scientific American allowed the statement "This opens the door to a new disruptive theory"
Since you don't put any context there but do make it clear that wasn't a review I can only assume coincidence.
Gravity is simply caused by electromagnetic force field attachments between all atoms
No. If that was true we would have a gravity machine. YOU would have made one yourself.
nside the mass the attachment forces are always towards the mass wherever it may be located.
Inside, outside a billion light years away that is true but it by the warping of space not electro-magnetic force.

Ethelred
Terberculosis
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2010
To anyone still checking this who actually read the paper on ArXiv....

I was very worried about the validity of this paper when I came across statements like this

"The peaks of high variance are of no importance, as these can result from numerous irrelevant effects."

Second to last paragraph on page 4.

I fail to see how he can make such impressive claims about his low variance circles, but completely dismiss the high variance circles between them, looking at the histograms at the top of page 5, there is a clear pattern of low then high variance circles.

Terberculosis
4 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2010
Continued: Comment too long for one reply, looks like it will take 3.

The "simple geometry" of the image at the top of page 7 is distrubing as well. He indicates that an inflationary big bang would be far down the image, presumably at t= negative infinity (no character map, sorry), while it should actually be at something near t=-0.003, where t=0 is the "last scattering" (atomic hydrogen recombination @ 300,000 years post Big Bang in the standard inflationary model), and the present day being t=1 or 13ish billion years.

If he is going to attach the inflationary model, he should at least represent it accurately.

Terberculosis
5 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2010
Continued Part 3:

I agree with his statements that an inflationary model would easily incorporate large numbers of large radius circles, and can see where an inflationary model would produce far fewer small radius circles...But statistically, you would expect to find large numbers of low variance small radius circles in any similar data set. the smaller your data set, the more likely you will find low or high variance.

And as a final note...
9 of the 14 citations in the paper are by the two authors of the paper.

1 of the 14 citations is Einstein's General Relativity paper

and 1 of the 14 is Guth's Inflation paper.

There are only 3 real citations here... and one of the 6 Penrose citations is for his popular science book The Road to Reality.

I cry foul.
ChrisColes
1 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2010
Gravity is simply caused by electromagnetic force field attachments between all atoms
No. If that was true we would have a gravity machine. YOU would have made one yourself.
Ethelred


What you have to learn to understand is that today, it is nigh on impossible to present any form of debate against Big Bang. When Einstein presented his paper centred on the conversion of mass to energy, his new thinking was welcomed by everyone, on all sides of the debate, regardless of their previous opinion. Einstein got a fair hearing. Today, new thinking is strongly repulsed. With the greatest of respects, you give an excellent example. Yes, in fairness to you, you do not know what I am talking about. You have neither read my own input, nor any review regardless that the first edition was published 2003 and the latest e-pub April 2009 and has been in the hands of the major scientific journals but without any paid (I am unfunded) publicity & as such, my hands are tied by convention --
KwasniczJ
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2010
When Einstein presented his paper centered on the conversion of mass to energy, his new thinking was welcomed by everyone, on all sides of the debate, regardless of their previous opinion. Einstein got a fair hearing
Actually not, Einstein has been violently opposed in his time, too - mainstream physics just covered all objections of his opponents. But it's true, Einstein got a strong support of existing establishment of Prussian Academy of Sciences (Max Planck), who wanted to prove superiority of German science over rest of Europe. It was particularly because Einstein plagiarized many findings, collected with previous authors. Ethelred is halfeducated anonymous troll, you cannot compare him with feedback of professional scientific community, which is much more opened to alternative cosmology.
KwasniczJ
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2010
We should realize, the commenters of PO articles are regular readers of popular science articles, which have a tendency to simplify and generalize various findings. Therefore regular readers of popular science are more conservative, then the real specialists, who are confronted with actual experimental data often. The trolls here are just parroting what they learned from schools, where the knowledge is simplified, filtered and biased towards intersubjectively accepted mainstream paradigm. We cannot compare these negativistic trolls with official feedback of scientific community, which represents another level of qualification. I noticed many times, professional physicists are openly studying models, which the trolls here are actively fighting against.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2010
Albeit Universe is expanding seemingly (Hubble 1929), the astronomers have found, the galaxies are actually shrinking with time.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4956

Because a true galaxy-size increase would be incompatible with standard cosmology, if not with the laws of gravity, authors indicate the existence of systematical errors in Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Albeit I do believe, this finding is actually consistent with particle dispersion model of Universe expansion, in which objects smaller then the wavelength of CMBR are expanding with time, but the objects larger then the CMBR wavelength are collapsing instead in analogy with capillary wave dispersion at the water surface.

In accordance with this model many phenomena related to universe red shift actually dissaper for CMBR wavelengths (CMBR photons cannot disperse with itself):

http://www.tgdail...t-at-all
hylozoic
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2010
Steady State or BUST.
Terberculosis
5 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2010
...this finding is actually consistent with particle dispersion model of Universe expansion, in which objects smaller then the wavelength of CMBR are expanding with time, but the objects larger then the CMBR wavelength are collapsing instead ...


Where is your evidence for this? That's a pretty bold claim, and bold claims require bold evidence. Surely the Galaxies shrinking isn't due to gravitational collapse (the same force that caused them to shrink to their present size from the nearly uniform cloud of gas that filled the entire universe after the big bang.

Also: you say objects smaller than the wavelength of the CMBR are expanding, while objects larger are shrinking.... Objects larger than the CMBR wavelength are composed of objects smaller than the CMBR wavelength (galaxies are composed of atoms).

Terberculosis
3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2010
Seriously, did anyone here actually read the paper? Is anyone here to talk about what Penrose and the other author had to say, and not troll, or spout off about their own poorly thought out pet theories?
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2010
Four parts
What you have to learn to understand is that today, it is nigh on impossible to present any form of debate against Big Bang.
You just got here didn't you? Such debates are at least weekly occurrences.
When Einstein presented his paper centred on the conversion of mass to energy,
He never wrote such a paper. He DID write a paper on Special Relativity that INCLUDES a formula for how much energy matter contains, but even that was not about conversion of mass to energy.
his new thinking was welcomed by everyone, on all sides of the debate, regardless of their previous opinion.
Another silly idea. He had detractors. They just didn't last long.
Today, new thinking is strongly repulsed.
You mean YOUR nonsense is being ignored. Cranks always make this claim.
With the greatest of respects, you give an excellent example.
Actually I simply can see that you don't have ANY proof and don't have ANY concept of gravity.

More
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2010
Part two
Yes, in fairness to you, you do not know what I am talking about
Unfortunately YOU don't know what you're talking about.
You have neither read my own input,
You said gravity was an electro-magnetic effect. If I misunderstood that you COULD, and still can, explain what you really meant. As is it's crap.
has been in the hands of the major scientific journals
Who clearly have found them without foundation in actual reality.

I note that you have NOT tried to present evidence or even a clear proposal here. Just complained about people pointing out that you had said some pretty silly things.

Yet More
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2010
Part three
If you want respect on this YOU must actually present something that is not blatantly wrong like this
Gravity is simply caused by electromagnetic force field attachments between all atoms.
Which as I pointed out already would make Gravity devices something that could have been made easily. Which hasn't happened. Even YOU have not made one. Not one word have you said to explain this discrepancy. Instead went on a standard Crank rant.

Explain the problem. Explain how NO ONE has noticed that gravity is a electro-magnetic phenomena in all the years since Faraday. Don't bother complaining about criticism. JUST EXPLAIN. Complaining about criticism is what Cranks do. We have a lot of them here. Some with degrees. Oliver K. Manuel for instance thinks the Sun has an Iron core. He thinks saying so makes it so as his alleged evidence isn't.

Extra More
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2010
Last Part
Please note that no else is even bothering to go to as much effort as I have. This is because you are utterly unconvincing. You act like a crank. You have papers you have to self publish. You told a pretty ludicrous story about an astronomer who would have had to have been completely incompetent to not be able to show your error. If he did back away it was likely because your behavior was not that of a stable person.

Again try to explain with clarity. Show evidence that might support you. Tell us why you think you know more than Einstein. It is weird to try to equate yourself with someone you are trying to disprove.

Ethelred
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2010
Seriously, did anyone here actually read the paper? Is anyone here to talk about what Penrose and the other author had to say, and not troll, or spout off about their own poorly thought out pet theories?
IMHO a classification which only differentiates between trolls and hobbyists with pet theories on the one hand and professionals with a formal education on the other hand is a bit too coarse for PhysOrg because it doesn't respect the striving of non-professionals for enlightenment.
Whoever wants to discuss with professionals exclusively should refrain from commenting on PhysOrg and move over to PhysicsForums.

Terberculosis
5 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2010
I asked an astronomy prof at the AAAS meeting at Nashville TN, 2003 to imagine we are in a room at the centre of Earth, surely we could stand upon any wall, ceiling or floor with our feet towards the surface and our heads at the very centre of all the mass where there would surely be a point where all the forces of gravity balance.


This is very poorly thought out, You experience NO net gravitational force inside a uniform spherical shell of matter.

Inside this magical room, you would float weightlessly, as the masses on each side of you would be exerting equal but opposite forces in all directions.

http://en.wikiped..._theorem
Terberculosis
4 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2010
IMHO a classification which only differentiates between trolls and hobbyists with pet theories on the one hand and professionals with a formal education on the other hand is a bit too coarse for PhysOrg because it doesn't respect the striving of non-professionals for enlightenment.


Who said anything about professionals? I am not a professional, I just want to debate the merits of the paper this article is about, and not argue endlessly with people who havent bothered to read the 8 page paper.

Also: they used 10885 random centerpoints for their study then computed 30 circles around each one, coming up with something like 3*10^6 possible circles, then they act amazed that they found a circle with a probability of 1*10^-7 in a gaussian distribution.

It seems to me that if you have a sample size of 3*10^6 and find something only expected to happen 1 out of every 1*10^7 times, you havent really found anything that spectacular.
TAz00
not rated yet Nov 28, 2010
I'd say it looks alot like the gravity waves remants from the big bang astronomers have been looking for.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2010
Modern cosmology has become completely metaphysical and a total diversion from legitimate science. Meanwhile, cosmologists continue to ignore the widespread observation of critical ionization velocities -- particularly at 35 km/s -- to be associated with the interstellar filamentary structures called "anomalous high-velocity clouds." It's become clear that Big Bang theorists would prefer to just ignore these redshifts, since they do not support their pre-existing views of the universe. And they continue to call these structures "clouds" even as radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur has published maps of these structures that are EXTREMELY FILAMENTARY.

Instead, what we get is a metaphysical discussion, cloaked in scientific formula and terminology, whose sole purpose is to extend this never-ending thought experiment, to the exclusion of far more legitimate inferences based upon laboratory plasma physics.

What a waste.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2010
With full respect to insights, which Plasma Cosmology can still bring into understanding of evolution of galaxies, stars and dark matter, I do believe, the future understanding of Universe will be solely based on principles, in which random geometry of space-time can interact with itself. Probably on background of its modeling with sufficiently nested density fluctuations of Boltzmann gas and/or wave equation in sufficient number of dimensions.

We should accept, Universe is as random and indeterministic, as human creatures can ever imagine - so we cannot consider any meaningful laws in it at sufficiently global scale.
Fakeer
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2010
Approaching Hindu (Vedic) cosmology.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2010
IMHO a classification which only differentiates between trolls and hobbyists with pet theories on the one hand and professionals with a formal education on the other hand is a bit too coarse for PhysOrg because it doesn't respect the striving of non-professionals for enlightenment.
Who said anything about professionals?
You are trying to evade. No, you didn't say so, neither did you write so. But the juxtaposition of "those who actually read the paper" with trolls and "poorly thought out pet theories" while omitting any stance different from those does a poorly thought out classification make.
I am not a professional, I just want to debate the merits of the paper this article is about, and not argue endlessly with people who havent bothered to read the 8 page paper.
Nothing wrong about that. Except the suggestion that it isn't your whole and only responsibility to whom you answer (once or endlessly).
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2010
How EXACTLY do any of these theories account for the existence of space, time, and matter prior to the big bang, and moreover how did any information they produce pass the singularity at the big bang?

You seem to be confusing the before with the after in this case. I don't blame you, they get complicated. These theories deal with the big bang, the bfore and the after, as well as the after us, and after the "degenerate age" portion of cosmology. I could explain them but 1k characters is no where near enough.


No Penrose is confused if he thinks there were black holes before there was time/space for them to exist in, or mass for them to consist of...much less explode an leave pretty circles in the CMB which didn't exist yet either...

He's talking about what happened BEFORE the big bang...not after.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2010
No Penrose is confused if he thinks there were black holes before there was time/space for them to exist in, or mass for them to consist of...much less explode an leave pretty circles in the CMB which didn't exist yet either...

He's talking about what happened BEFORE the big bang...not after.
He's talking about both. First, the observations show something existing before the opaque universe ended. That's post BB and pre-CMB. Then there are further observations that indicate the presence of structure prior to the event we call the BB. That doesn't mean space and time didn't exist. One of the possibilities of BBTheory is that space and time "came into existence" at the BB. That isn't necessarily true and BB Theory doesn't require it to be as such.
It seems to me that if you have a sample size of 3*10^6 and find something only expected to happen 1 out of every 1*10^7 times, you havent really found anything that spectacular.
It was expected that there would be no finding.
Vank_Upperfield
not rated yet Nov 29, 2010
@S_H
Well, according to a rough estimation I made, the chances were about one in four for them to find anything.

P=1 - ((1 - (10^(-7)))^(3 * (10^6))) = 0.25918179

Please correct me if I missed something
Pyle
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2010
You missed something.

First they didn't provide the information you have written an equation for. From the paper, there were multiple points that exhibited multiple concentric circles of low energy. The "random" chance of what they found occurring was less than 1-.9999966 or 0.00034% (six sigma).
I tend to to trust the peer-reviewed statistical calculations presented in research papers.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2010
Re: "First, the observations show something existing before the opaque universe ended. That's post BB and pre-CMB. Then there are further observations that indicate the presence of structure prior to the event we call the BB. That doesn't mean space and time didn't exist. One of the possibilities of BBTheory is that space and time "came into existence" at the BB. That isn't necessarily true and BB Theory doesn't require it to be as such."

One has to seriously wonder at how rigorous the process of identifying all of the simplest, least metaphysical inferences was, in their decision to focus specifically on this one.

At the point where we are talking about what happened before time and space, then this discussion has become completely unphysical and entirely mathematical.

BBTheory seems intent on redefining every single term ad concept used in physics - all to assert that there was a "creation event."

At this point, people can be permitted to imagine that mistakes have been made.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2010
At the point where we are talking about what happened before time and space, then this discussion has become completely unphysical and entirely mathematical.


But they were NOT talking about before time. If so you would be right. They were talking about before the decoupling of light from matter, the CMB AND the POSSIBILITY that there was time before the BB. In many BB variants there was time before the Bang.

Also there is brane theory which can produce something much like a BB without starting from a singularity.

Ethelred
Pyle
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2010
@HA
blah...seriously wonder... blah blah

They made a prediction and the observed data supported it. Which is more than most competing theories have done. Especially those spouted on about here.
At this point...blah...completely unphysical...

No, they have fit mathematical predictions to observed data - PHYSICAL.
...intent on redefining...blah..."creation event."

What? BB=creationist? ???
...mistakes have been made.

That is the scientific process. Hypothesis. Test. Works? Gains acceptance. New findings? Refine the model/theory/etc.

So how does the Plasma model support the observed phenomenon? Last I checked it was pretty quiet regarding CMB altogether.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 30, 2010
One more on ChrisCole as I checked SA
The book? Spam? Well yes, but considering Scientific American allowed the statement "This opens the door to a new disruptive theory" (The last few lines in: The Extraordinary Deaths of Ordinary Stars, July 2004) yet has never named the theory or book.


Actual last paragraph cut and paste from PDF
We are hardly the only astrophysicists to be awed, puzzled and challenged by enigmatic images from Hubble and other instruments over the past decade. Nearly every field of astronomical research has a similar tale to tell. New information ultimately upends the best of theories in every field of research. That is the nature of progress. Discovery is often disruptive. It clears out old niches and prepares the way for big (and often disorienting) leaps forward. Scientific theories are built to be used, but they must be mistrusted, tested and improved.


That Mr. Coles thinks this is a sign the authors read his book is not a good thing.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2010
@S_H
Well, according to a rough estimation I made, the chances were about one in four for them to find anything.

P=1 - ((1 - (10^(-7)))^(3 * (10^6))) = 0.25918179

Please correct me if I missed something
Well what are you basing your estimates on.

The chance of finding concentric circles in what appears to be ordered noise isn't going to be something that can be figure by a simple equation like that.
Vank_Upperfield
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2010
Yeah, I did think my estimate was pretty high. Just saw the mistake I made, nvm
pauljpease
3 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2010
Yeah that's extremely similar to the SG Universe idea. Even if S_H didn't pay attention again.

I suggest you watch it again.


Sorry Skeptic, I usually agree with your posts, but I think you're missing the connection on this one. SGU: there appears to be a Universe-scale signal propagating that might be evidence of how the Universe was created, maybe even sign of intelligent creation. This research: there is a giant "signal" propagating through the universe that might be evidence for how universe was created. It's an extremely close match, they just played up the "possible evidence of intelligence" in SGU....
pauljpease
3 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2010
On the topic of the probability of finding concentric circles in noise that is assumed to be random, I don't know how to do it but it is definitely possible to put a figure on it. Could be easily tested by picking another random shape with the same information content (say, concentric triangles), and seeing if they pop up. This reminds me of an experiment on the visual cortex/conscious-subconscious system. Volunteers were told to find a triangle in a field of truly random noise (a conscious goal). There were no triangles, but, after analyzing the points that the eyes fixated on during saccades (controlled by subconscious processes), the areas that the eyes found had a significantly higher correlation to "triangleness" than a random sample. Very interesting, our conscious brain programs our subconscious to be on the lookout for things we want to find. We all need to be wary of this phenomenon!
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2010
This research: there is a giant "signal" propagating through the universe that might be evidence for how universe was created. It's an extremely close match, they just played up the "possible evidence of intelligence" in SGU....
This is wrong. There isn't a giant signal propagating through space showing how the universe was created in this research. This research is showing the presence of large singularity like objects before during and after the initial inflation event.
Twitch
1.3 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2010
I just think all of these comments and the article itself is funny, because we're basing all this information on things we cannot know for certain. All of it is conjecture, cause we weren't there...
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2010
I just think all of these comments and the article itself is funny, because we're basing all this information on things we cannot know for certain. All of it is conjecture, cause we weren't there...

So when you're not looking at the moon, does it piss off for a coffee break or are you fairly confident that it's there without having to directly experience its presence? Not trying to say that we definitively know what happened, but you can't just throw your arms up and run away from things that may clash with your particular world view.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2010
Penrose and Gurzadyan are not the first one who have noticed the structures in CMBR at spherical harmonics. For example, in 2003 Stacy McGaugh has noticed the excess at L=40, too. See her figure 7 in particular.

http://iopscience...fg7.html

See also Mortonson et al. 2009 for an attempt to find an inflationary explanation of the L=40 bump.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1106
Twitch
1.5 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2010
Oh, the moon is there. I'm talking about these theories about before the Big Bang. I don't even believe that the Big Bang happened, and this is all about seeing what was there before there was anything there. The words in the article are "thought to have occurred..." and "implying that..." which mean we don't know. What they don't say is that we can't know. Yeah you can come up with good theories that impress the unscientific community, but it doesn't actually prove anything. So we have concentric circles that scientists think came from black holes colliding...I think a lot of things, doesn't make it true. Until they can prove it, which they can't, I don't agree with the validity of these 'theories'.
Pyle
5 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2010
@Twitch,
We know you don't believe that the BB happened. That is what SH meant with "clash with your particular world view."
What you don't seem to appreciate is your attitude is a rejection of the scientific principle entirely. Impressing the unscientific community, as you put it, has nothing to do with it.

Physics research supports most of the technological advances of the past 200 years, if not more. From steam engines to skyscrapers to nuclear power, physics is at the foundation. We can't "prove" a lot of things, but we can explore the evidence, develop hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and build better theories. The purpose is to understand the universe we live in.

More...
Twitch
1.3 / 5 (8) Dec 01, 2010
I am well aware of physics, how it works, and what we are doing with it these days. I'm saying that without actual proof, these hypotheses (pl. with e) aren't enough for us to say what actually happened. Me believing Creation happened is faith. You believing the big bang happened is faith. I am not rejecting any scientific principles. Science is the knowledge of a particular field, and we learn about science by observing. Relating that definition to the beginning of the universe, we can't know what happened because we were not there, therefore, any theory we come up with is not true science, but belief in whatever.
Pyle
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2010
If you were presented with a video of a crime committed, would you accept it as evidence proving that somebody committed the crime?

What is a video? Photons "captured" on media. Based on the pattern recorded on the media we are able to display the image recorded. Can we really "prove" that what is recorded really happened and wasn't just a chance collection of photons that appears as if the person committed the crime?

The CMBR is just more energy we are observing. These concentric rings are being seen. Scientists are developing explanations and then testing their theories. As we find more we refine.

Reject the scientific method if you want, but just know what that makes you.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2010
Me believing Creation happened is faith. You believing the big bang happened is faith.
No, I have evidence, you have a book written by nomads and wanderers from backwards civilizations.

It can be illuminated rather simply. Do you believe the earth is flat, or that bats are birds? If you don't, the basic tenets of your faith are all impeachable. I'm not going to get into the god discussion because frankly I no longer care what the religious think about reality. I will call it out when the religious, like yourself, attempt to project their lack of knowledge onto the foundational understanding brought forth by science.
Twitch
2 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2010
Although many say that science is completely separate from religion, I disagree. I believe that science cannot answer certain questions about life, i.e. free will, why, etc...However, it can answer other questions with astounding accuracy. I just wish people would not get into their cliches and forget about the 'other side' so to speak when each side can learn much from the other.

Just my opinion, feel free to disagree...
Twitch
1 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2010
Me believing Creation happened is faith. You believing the big bang happened is faith.
No, I have evidence, you have a book written by nomads and wanderers from backwards civilizations.


What evidence? I would very much like to know, because all of the other evidence that scientists and scholars alike have tried to show me has fallen flat and been worth nothing, at their own admittance. Please tell me.

And it's really not worth the insult to talk about the world being flat and bats being birds...
Twitch
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2010
@Pyle, I would not just simply believe that the person actually committed the crime, because videos can be faked. Unless I was there, or trusted someone that was there, I doubt I could 'know' that that person committed the crime. Yes, I could guess with relative certainty that he/she did, but couldn't know for certain. Again, science is backed up by cold hard facts, none of which any of you are presenting, which makes it hard for me to know it's correct.
Pyle
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2010
What does developing theories about the cause of concentric circles of lower energy in the CBMR have to do with answering questions about free will, why, etc.?

Oh yeah, nothing. Your problem with it is that it contradicts your holy book, or whatever, that was handed down to you by the "nomads and wanders."

So how old is the Earth in your estimation? If not 6,000 years old, then what is your problem with a scientific theory about CMBR?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2010
I actually think M-Theory or "Brane Theory" makes a lot of sense. There are some huge gaps need filling in it, but at least it's plausible.

I still have not the slightest clue what this article has to do with what happened BEFORE the big bang though...
Twitch
1 / 5 (6) Dec 01, 2010
I think you guys are missing my point. My problem is that there is no specific evidence that actually proves these theories to be true. Scientists think this, and estimate that, and imply this could have happen, and people like you take to heart and declare it truth. Sorry, but thats just not the case.
Pyle
5 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2010
Declare it truth? No. I think I can speak for several of us here and say that we don't believe theories to be truth, as you put it. You are equating our acceptance of peer reviewed research with your faith in fairy tales, while ignoring our scientific skepticism and openness to consider conflicting theories supported by evidence.
You are right, the evidence doesn't "prove" the theories to be true. It only supports them. In this case it validated them since the theory predicted a result that was confirmed by observation.

Are the theories "proved to be true"? No. Just not contradicted yet by evidence.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2010
Although many say that science is completely separate from religion, I disagree. I believe that science cannot answer certain questions about life...
Not having an answer is not the same as never being able to answer. Science is a progression from knowing nothing to knowing something based upon the actions and observations of reality.
What evidence? I would very much like to know, because all of the other evidence that scientists and scholars alike have tried to show me has fallen flat and been worth nothing, at their own admittance. Please tell me.
We can start with the CMBR, the Hubble Observations, baryonic structure with P greater than 1, none of which aren't notable nor do they fall flat.
And it's really not worth the insult to talk about the world being flat and bats being birds...
It's only an insult if you insist that the Bible is true and believe it literally over the observations found in reality.
Twitch
1.4 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2010
@Pyle, I'm sorry you feel the need to insult me, when all I am doing is participating a discussion. I was unaware that I could not hold my own opinion. I am not ignoring your 'scientific skepticism' as you put it, I was just saying that I thought it seemed less skeptical and more unquestioning. I am glad that you are skeptic and open to different things and don't believe that these theories are true. That is all I meant. Meanwhile, you can believe they are not contradicted by evidence, while I think they are.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2010
Meanwhile, you can believe they are not contradicted by evidence, while I think they are.
Give me some evidence that refutes the standard model of cosmology. Go ahead, I'm thoroughly intrigued to see what crap you post in response.
Twitch
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2010
@Skeptic, how do CMBR, the Hubble Observations, and baryonic structure provide evidence. Pyle was just saying they are theories that aren't even considered truth yet. Do you disagree with him? Just curious. What you mentioned seems more to me like searching for answers still.

And as for the Bible being true, I have found a large amount of observable phenomenon that say the Bible is true, while I have yet to find any that says it is false. Just food for thought.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2010
@Skeptic, how do CMBR, the Hubble Observations, and baryonic structure provide evidence. Pyle was just saying they are theories that aren't even considered truth yet.
The CMBR, the Hubble Observation and baryonic structure are not thoeries, they are observations. They are fact, they exist. They support the standard model of cosmology, which is a theory. You don't seem to understand what theory means within the context of science. It isn't "just a guess".

And as for the Bible being true, I have found a large amount of observable phenomenon that say the Bible is true, while I have yet to find any that says it is false. Just food for thought.
Then name the observations that lend creedence to a self contradictory story that includes witches, demons, devils, and djinns.
Twitch
1 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2010
I am not going to get into an arguing match with you @Skeptic, sorry if you thought that. I prefer discussing things with people who are open to others having different opinions, which it seems you are not. Have a nice day.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2010
I am not going to get into an arguing match with you @Skeptic, sorry if you thought that. I prefer discussing things with people who are open to others having different opinions, which it seems you are not. Have a nice day.

So you have no evidence, and little understanding of science.

Welcome to the roster of Physorg Misologists.

FYI: When you say something silly, and someone else tells you it's silly, that isn't an argument. In order for it to be an argument, you'd need to have a supportable point.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2010
I am not going to get into an arguing match with you @Skeptic, sorry if you thought that. I prefer discussing things with people who are open to others having different opinions, which it seems you are not. Have a nice day.

So you have no evidence, and little understanding of science.

Welcome to the roster of Physorg Misologists.

FYI: When you say something silly, and someone else tells you it's silly, that isn't an argument. In order for it to be an argument, you'd need to have a supportable point.
No you don't.

http://www.youtub...KtI6gn9Y
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2010
No you don't.

This is abuse, argument is down the hall.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (5) Dec 01, 2010
As I explained in discussion here

http://www.physor...firstCmt

L-CDM model works well when Universe is observed in visible light. In microwaves our Universe isn't expanding at all and in radiowaves it even collapses instead. Which provides strong support for tired light hypothesis, because the dispersion of light at the CMB noise occurs in similar way, like the dispersion of transverse waves at the water surface.

During this dispersion the tiny ripples are becoming even smaller and vice-versa: the waves larger then few centimeters are becoming larger, because they're spreading with increased speed. Actually the same phenomena we can observe during heavy rain, when double rainbow is formed: the dark zone between rainbows (so-called the Alexander's dark band) corresponds the cosmic space, the inner rainbow corresponds the surface of observable matter, the outer rainbow corresponds the surface of sparse antimatter (dark matter).
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2010
ow do CMBR, the Hubble Observations
The second shows the Universe is expanding, which is where the idea for the BB came from. The first is a VERY strong confirmation that the Universe was not only smaller in the past but was once nothing but hot gas.
I have found a large amount of observable phenomenon that say the Bible is true
Would you care to post something that shows the world is young. Something real that I can't show wrong in seconds. In a decade of discussing this not one person has been able to produce such evidence.

Then there is that little problem with the Flood and the Egyptians not noticing they were drowned.

Ethelred
neiorah
not rated yet Dec 02, 2010
If the cyclic nature of the universe is true, when did it first start or has it always been?
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2010
IMO it's just an observational illusion. Random Universe appears like space-time foam from perspective of limited observer, so if you're sitting inside of one of its bubbles, you can get an impression, your neighborhood is periodic - but at large scale it actually isn't. The recent observations of very old galaxies are violating both periodic, both aperiodic models of Universe.

http://www.dailyg...ink.html
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2010
If the cyclic nature of the universe is true, when did it first start or has it always been?
This is not science; it's philosophy. Therefore you may choose your preferred setting.
Times are just getting more difficult for those who prefer a creation setting and think that science favors their preferred setting.
I'm quite comfortable without start and end.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2010
If the cyclic nature of the universe is true, when did it first start or has it always been? This is not science; it's philosophy.
Why do you mean? IMO it's quite legitimate science question in the same way, like the thinking about origin of Big Bang lead into concept of cyclic cosmology. For example, you can propose dumped cycles, increasing/decreased frequency of cycles, etc.. - and propose experiments/observations confirming it.

I can observe a tendency of mainstream proponents to consider all questions, which the mainstream science cannot answer reliably by now, as a philosophy - but this is just an attempt for religious evading of legitimate answers. Scientific research is just solving of about questions, we cannot answer by now. If we would know an answer, we wouldn't do any research.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2010
Why do you mean? IMO it's quite legitimate science question in the same way, like the thinking about origin of Big Bang lead into concept of cyclic cosmology. For example, you can propose dumped cycles, increasing/decreased frequency of cycles, etc.. - and propose experiments/observations confirming it.
If you do not have enough evidence or a reasonable amount of observations that can be defined as leading to the question, it is mere philosophy. Similar to string theory being philosophy but string field theory having quantifiable observational indication.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2010
At present it is still philosophy. All the physical evidence for the actual beginning of the Universe is in the CMBR. That's it. Oh we KNOW the Universe is expanding and have red evidence but that doesn't take us back past that wall of light.

Analyzing the light can tell us things but it will never tell us all we want to know about the time before that light decoupled from matter. Maybe with that and with accelerator experiments we can put together enough information to make informed guesses. For instance maybe we can someday prove brane theory isn't just spitwadding with numbers.

For example, you can propose dumped cycles, increasing/decreased frequency of cycles, etc.. - and propose experiments/observations confirming it.


Really? What experiments? What sort of evidence can be found EXCEPT in the CMBR and those accelerator experiments YOU are complaining about?

Ethelred
KwasniczJ
1.2 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2010
.. I prefer discussing things with people who are open to others having different opinions, which it seems you are not.... So you have no evidence, and little understanding of science...
Science is just about discussion of different opinions. Nothing is considered selfevident truth there, scientific theories the less. You're just a religious troll, who don't understand it.
... What sort of evidence can be found EXCEPT in the CMBR and those accelerator experiments YOU are complaining about.
Accelerator experiments cannot prove anything about universe history - until you consider, we are living in accelerator. This is just a mainstream propaganda, the only purpose of it is to justify another investments of taxes into collider experiments. Regarding the experimental evidence of Universe history, we discussed it here: it's based on the analysis of distant radiowave sources (Eureka II observations) and many others.

http://www.physor...nal.html
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2010
Regarding the comments about Stargate. I was bit lazy and hadn't checked a website I usually read most days. John Scalzi's site. John writes Science Fiction he is a consultant on Stargate. His blog is alleged to be one of the oldest.

So here is a link to his take on this.

http://whatever.s...comments

And a bit of the post.

1. The similarities to this point are coincidental. I am as well-versed in recent cosmological thinking as any layman, but Sir Roger has not been calling me (or, I am reasonably sure, the SG:U producers or writers) and providing tidbits regarding his latest research. We just happened to play with something for the series that just happened to superficially resemble his actual theorizing.


Ethelred
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2010
IMO these concentric "circles" are rather vertices of docecahedron, thus being another evidence of E8 heterotic structure of Universe. Mr. Garret should extend his E8 theory to the cosmologic scale...

Does it mean, Prof. Penrose is wrong? Actually not quite: we are living in "hall of mirrors" composed of nested Gosset-Petrie polytopes, so we can see the neighbouring universe cells - i.e. these more distant in apparent "Universe history".
Pyle
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2010
E8, say what? You are pretty far out there with this one.

Care to explain how "circular" regions of low energy have anything to do with Garret's symmetry model/grand unification idea? Or are you just using E8 for your vacuum bubble shape?
yyz
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2010
Papers by two independent groups have been posted that have found NO evidence for the CCC cosmology as laid out by Gurzadyan and Penrose. Both groups did find evidence for circles on the sky but in both cases found that these were expected anomalies in the CMB and were consistent with LCDM cosmologies.

http://arxiv.org/...05v1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/...68v1.pdf

KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2010
E8, say what? You are pretty far out there with this one.
Not quite, root vectors of E8 have structure of dedecahedral symmetry. Lie E8 group is not just some void geometrical structure. It’s root vector system is describing the tightest structure of kissing scale invariant hyperspheres ("unparticles"), where the kissing points of spheres are sitting at the centers of another hyperspheres, recursively. We can propose at least two dual ways, how to interpret such structure:

The cosmological one is maybe easier to realize: it considers, the current Universe generation is formed by interior of giant dense collapsar, which is behaving like black hole from outer perspective. This collapse was followed by phase transition, which proceeded like crystallization from over-saturated solution by avalanche-like mechanism. During this, the approximately spherical zones of condensing false vacuum have intersect mutually, and from these places the another vacuum condensation has started.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2010
We can observe the residuum of these zones as a dark matter streaks. The dodecahedron structure of these zones should corresponds the E8 group geometry, as being observed from inside (i.e. from past perspective due the Universe "expansion").

Therefore the E8 Lie group solves the trivial question: "Which structure should have the tightest lattice of particles, exchanged/formed by another particles?". And such question has perfect meaning even from classical physics point of view! Such question has a perfect meaning in theory, describing the most dense structure of inertial particles, which we can ever imagine, i.e. the interior of black hole.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2010
.. .. Both groups did find evidence for circles on the sky .....
That's right, because no circles are actually here. There are points (vortices of dodecahedron) arranged into circles.

http://www.aanda....mg84.gif

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2010
Papers by two independent groups have been posted that have found NO evidence for the CCC cosmology as laid out by Gurzadyan and Penrose. Both groups did find evidence for circles on the sky but in both cases found that these were expected anomalies in the CMB and were consistent with LCDM cosmologies.
Unfortunate. I'll go let the air out of the balloons.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2010
Dodecahedron structure of CMBR fluctuations is well proven and it doesn't correspond the Gaussian distribution assumed with LCDM model.

http://www.lhup.e...ids5.jpg
Pyle
3 / 5 (2) Dec 07, 2010
@SH,
Don't let the air out yet. GP10 was peer reviewed and they seem very confident in their findings; six sigma confident. These independent groups were unable to find similar non-Gaussian-ness, but I would like G&P to get a chance to respond and also for the indpendent's work to be reviewed, "circles on the sky"??? I would think all three papers can be correct at the same time if they aren't honed in on the same phenomenon.

@pauljpease - triangleness - you the man! See yyz's first link.

@Kwasinczj - I loved the nested black hole part and the E8 density comments. Lose those links to hokie jpegs though.
yyz
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2010
@Pyle

"...I would like G&P to get a chance to respond..."

"More on the low variance circles in CMB sky" for your perusal: http://arxiv.org/...1486.pdf

From the abstract:

"...the circles we saw are a real structure of the CMB sky and they are not of a random Gaussian nature. Although the structures studied certainly cannot contradict the power spectrum, which is well fitted by LCDM model, we particularly emphasize that the low variance circles occur in concentric families, and this key fact cannot be explained as a purely random effect. It is, however a clear prediction of conformal cyclic cosmology."

Will be interesting to see either groups response to this.
yyz
4 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2010
"It is, however a clear prediction of conformal cyclic cosmology."

I suspect this may be a point of contention!
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2010
...Lose those links to hokie jpegs though...
Which ones and why? What the "hokie" means?

Every stance should have some reasons... If nothing else, physicists should be surprised, how exactly their predecessors justiced the nature of our Universe.
yyz
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2010
hokie: corny and contrived, fake and melodramatic, insincerely emotional

alternate spelling -

hokey: obviously contrived, esp. to win popular appeal or support; phony.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2010
Thanks. The cube and octahedron are "dual" to each other, as are the icosahedron and the dodecahedron. Dual solids have the same symmetry group, so there are three symmetry groups here: the tetrahedron, cube and icoshedron.

http://www.lhup.e...ids5.jpg

http://math.ucr.e...5in1.gif

Do you understand, what the McKay correspondence and "heterotic" word means?
KwasniczJ
2 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2010
In this article the circles are used as an evidence of eternal inflationary model instead...;-)

http://arxiv.org/...95v1.pdf

Objections against Penrose model & observations

http://arxiv4.lib...012.1305
http://arxiv4.lib...012.1268

Response of Penrose and Gurzadyn.

http://arxiv4.lib...012.1486
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2010
In this article the circles are used as an evidence of eternal inflationary model instead...;-)

http://arxiv.org/...95v1.pdf
yyz had already posted the last of these, but thanks for the links, these are very good reads. And no tacky jpegs and gifs.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2010
..And no tacky jpegs and gifs.
Until you draw the shape of dark matter fluctuations with using of various models, you wouldn't be able to decide, which model is actually correct anyway.

Which doesn't make so big trouble for mainstream theorists, who are trying to prolong their research as long, as possible into account of the rest of society. Why they should finish with their research, if it makes safe employment for them?

Such theorists are therefore behaving like shamans of medieval era, who tried to keep the actual understanding in secret before laymans, for the sake of their superiority over the rest of society.

If Penrose would draw his circle just not by hand in Photoshop, but with actual data, everyone would see clearly, what his model is actually about.

"Just no illustrative pictures, which could reveal our stupidity, please...!"
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2010
Until you draw the shape of dark matter fluctuations with using of various models, you wouldn't be able to decide, which model is actually correct anyway.
How does one draw, or physically represent that which has no physical representation?
yyz
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2010
I've come across a couple of blog posts by well known cosmologists that have some interesting comments on the GP10 paper and some of the responses mentioned above. Evidently, they don't seem to be able to follow the logic of GP10 anymore than some of the posters here. Sean Carroll's comments here: http://blogs.disc...smology/

Wrt Penrose's CCC: "As far as I know, there isn’t any exposition of the CCC in the form of a freely-available technical paper. There is a book, which hasn’t officially been released in the U.S. but you can get your hands on if you try hard enough, which I did."

_______

"Even with the book in my hands, however, I can’t quite discern the underlying physical mechanism that makes it all work."

Peter Coles also has an interesting look at the GP10 paper: http://telescoper...niverse/

con't
yyz
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2010
con't

Interestingly, Zephir, er, KwasniczJ has identical comments on his "E8 heterotic structure of the Universe" here and above, both from Dec. 6. Hmmm.

Additionally, Hajian has posted a third paper critical of the GP10 paper, available here: http://arxiv.org/...56v1.pdf

A_Vril
1 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2010

"Your solar system and other worlds of time are not plunging headlong, without chart and compass, into unmapped space. The local universe to which your system belongs is pursuing a definite and well-understood counterclockwise course around the vast swing that encircles the central universe. This cosmic path is well charted and is just as thoroughly known to the superuniverse star observers as the orbits of the planets constituting your solar system are known to 'Terra Ferma's" astronomers."
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2010
A_Vril

That was your first post. And it has no discernible relevance. However I will pretend.

Your solar system and other worlds of time are not plunging headlong, without chart and compass, into unmapped space.
No one claimed that.

The local universe to which your system belongs is pursuing a definite and well-understood counterclockwise course around the vast swing that encircles the central universe.
No. That is false. This is due the fact that the Universe we actually live in is expanding. At the 'edges' it is expanding at too high a rate to be gravitationally bound.

your solar system are known to 'Terra Ferma's" astronomers."
That must have come from some REALLY bad SF as the this planet IS Terra and the Firma part refers to the land as opposed to the water.

I suppose it could be from the Book of Urantia. That one makes bad SF look good.

In the future please try to give us a clue as to the purpose of the post.

Ethelred
Gawad
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2010
A_Vril

That was your first post. And it has no discernible relevance. However I will pretend.

Your solar system and other worlds of time are not plunging headlong, without chart and compass, into unmapped space.
It's just nonsense crap copy-pasted from this site http://urantiaboo...p015.htm
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2010
A_Vril

That was your first post. And it has no discernible relevance. However I will pretend.

Your solar system and other worlds of time are not plunging headlong, without chart and compass, into unmapped space.
It's just nonsense crap copy-pasted from this site http://urantiaboo...p015.htm

You know, I really wish Physorg had a preview function. And thanks for the notepad alternative as a "cheat", Eth, but I'm not on a Windows box. I'll look for another tool, though, a good idea remains a good idea.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2010
I was making a joke. I thought. It did sound stupid enough to be Urantia but I was sorta hoping.

There was the possibility that it came from one of L. Ron Hubbard's later craptastic SF books. Not the ones he typed on butcher paper BEFORE becoming a fraud, the ones after, when he had money.

Urantia is well its .. hard to describe without using words like
Delusional
Insane
Weird
Strange
Imaginative
Hallucinagenic
Without foundation in reality in any way shape or form. The believers in this stranger than Scientology sect think that they predicted things that were discovered in the thirties, only the book was published in the fifties. The believers cannot comprehend why I don't think those are predictions.

A favorite of mine.
987,000,000,000 years ago associate force organizer and then acting inspector number 811,307 of the Orvonton series, traveling out from Uversa, reported to the Ancients of Days that space conditions were favorable for the initiation


Ethelred
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2010
Here is another article of interest along the same lines as this one. This one seems to look at much larger "circles" in the CMB. Again, inconclusive, but evidence to support a theory.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995

Regarding Urantia, scary. I hope @A_Vril quoted in humor to get a rise out of people.