Friday, June 6, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

by BBC News

Thanks to Jacob Lovatt for the links.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7440217.stm

Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

A team of physicists has claimed that our view of the early Universe may contain the signature of a time before the Big Bang.

The discovery comes from studying the cosmic microwave background (CMB), light emitted when the Universe was just 400,000 years old.

Their model may help explain why we experience time moving in a straight line from yesterday into tomorrow.

Details of the work have been submitted to the journal Physical Review Letters.

The CMB is relic radiation that fills the entire Universe and is regarded as the most conclusive evidence for the Big Bang.

Although this microwave background is mostly smooth, the Cobe satellite in 1992 discovered small fluctuations that were believed to be the seeds from which the galaxy clusters we see in today's Universe grew.

Dr Adrienne Erickcek, and colleagues from the California Institute for Technology (Caltech), now believes these fluctuations contain hints that our Universe "bubbled off" from a previous one.

Their data comes from Nasa's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which has been studying the CMB since its launch in 2001.

Their model suggests that new universes could be created spontaneously from apparently empty space. From inside the parent universe, the event would be surprisingly unspectacular.

Arrow of time

Describing the team's work at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) in St Louis, Missouri, co-author Professor Sean Carroll explained that "a universe could form inside this room and we'd never know".

The inspiration for their theory isn't just an explanation for the Big Bang our Universe experienced 13.7 billion years ago, but lies in an attempt to explain one of the largest mysteries in physics - why time seems to move in one direction.

The laws that govern physics on a microscopic scale are completely reversible, and yet, as Professor Carroll commented, "no one gets confused about which is yesterday and which is tomorrow".

Physicists have long blamed this one-way movement, known as the "arrow of time" on a physical rule known as the second law of thermodynamics, which insists that systems move over time from order to disorder.

This rule is so fundamental to physics that pioneering astronomer Arthur Eddington insisted that "if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation".

The second law cannot be escaped, but Professor Carroll pointed out that it depends on a major assumption - that the Universe began its life in an ordered state.

This makes understanding the roots of this most fundamental of laws a job for cosmologists.

"Every time you break an egg or spill a glass of water you're learning about the Big Bang," Professor Carroll explained.

Before the bang

In his presentation, the Caltech astronomer explained that by creating a Big Bang from the cold space of a previous universe, the new universe begins its life in just such an ordered state.

The apparent direction of time - and the fact that it's hard to put a broken egg back together - is the consequence.

Much work remains to be done on the theory: the researchers' first priority will be to calculate the odds of a new universe appearing from a previous one.

In the meantime, the team have turned to the results from WMAP.

Detailed measurements made by the satellite have shown that the fluctuations in the microwave background are about 10% stronger on one side of the sky than those on the other.

Sean Carroll conceded that this might just be a coincidence, but pointed out that a natural explanation for this discrepancy would be if it represented a structure inherited from our universe's parent.

Meanwhile, Professor Carroll urged cosmologists to broaden their horizons: "We're trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything - or if there was, what it was."

If the Caltech team's work is correct, we may already have the first information about what came before our own Universe.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, June 6, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 61 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #189448 by Mango on June 6, 2008 at 9:51 am

From inside the parent universe, the event would be surprisingly unspectacular.

So we could be in a universe within a universe?

Other Comments by Mango

2. Comment #189465 by Bruno on June 6, 2008 at 10:14 am

Am I the only one who has trouble wrapping my head around stuff like this?

Other Comments by Bruno

3. Comment #189480 by zeroangel on June 6, 2008 at 10:39 am

This is really interesting, and also over my head. Can someone please explain this a bit more clearly? My understanding was the singularity at the Big Bang is basically the beginning of space-time. How does something come "before" the beginning of time? Also, if our universe "formed" out of another universe are they connected by some causality?

Other Comments by zeroangel

4. Comment #189484 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2008 at 10:47 am

This seems to be a summary of an article that I read recently in Scientific American, written by Professor Sean Carroll. The article can be found here:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-cosmic-origins-of-times-arrow

It's interesting, but in places there seem to be a lot of assumptions made without evidence.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

5. Comment #189487 by Raiko on June 6, 2008 at 10:59 am

I am just thinking what the parent universe concept would do to the anthropic principle. It would be even more likely that we would exist at some point - so many universes could have given it a try. :)

Other Comments by Raiko

6. Comment #189488 by Prankster on June 6, 2008 at 10:59 am

Trying to wrap my head around this is painful-however I liken it to the universe contracting an expanding-the universe reached such a point of contraction it actually exploded back out forming itself again-fanciful maybe but the science is well beyond me......just a thought..

Prankster

Other Comments by Prankster

7. Comment #189491 by designsoda on June 6, 2008 at 11:01 am

How is infinite regress dealt with here?

Other Comments by designsoda

8. Comment #189493 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 11:06 am

Comment #189480 by zeroangel

My understanding was the singularity at the Big Bang is basically the beginning of space-time.

I hope this helps:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/129811.html

(Please don't take offense at the title - it is about journalists who still mention the topic)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

9. Comment #189495 by HourglassMemory on June 6, 2008 at 11:07 am

Am I worrying in my ignornace, suddenly feeling that a universe could burst out of nowhere and replace ours into inexistance?
Or are universes, if they're created, expandng to dimensions beyond the ones we see, and thus we're "safe"?

But it's curious nonetheless that there might have been time before the big bang. Not a new thought for me though...

You want to bet people are going ot say "aahhh!!! see?... there was time before the big bang.....and a deity who cares for us was there!!!.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

10. Comment #189504 by Alan Canon on June 6, 2008 at 11:23 am

As far as other universes springing into being, I do know that virtual pairs of oppositely charged particles can come into being briefly, even in a vacuum, and then mutually annihilate in the blink of an eye. Though it appears to violate conservation of mass/energy, it's allowed by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The traditional statement of HUP is "uncertainty in momentum times uncertainty in position is greater than or equal to Planck's constant." To get the version helpful to this phenomenon, you rework the units until you have "uncertainty in energy times uncertainty in reaction time is greater than or equal to Planck's constant." So the worse the violation of the conservation law, the less time it's allowed to happen in. This so-called "zero-point" energy is the reason you can't have a perfect vacuum, and is also the reason black holes are predicted to radiate (one of the particles falls into the event horizon, and the other one escapes, before they have time to mutually annihilate.) Googling "zero-point radiation" would probably be helpful. As far as I know, zero-point radiation is an accepted part of the standard model, not controversial in any way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Other Comments by Alan Canon

11. Comment #189511 by zeroangel on June 6, 2008 at 11:37 am

@Zara:

Ah yes! That DOES help! Thank you. I feel ashamed I haven't read / understood it in that way before. I am somewhat familiar (in a layman's sense) with quantum physics, though I guess I just never put 2 and 2 together in the case of singularities.

Still, since everything becomes "uncertain" at the Big Bang, how are the folks in this study saying our universe "forms" from another?

Other Comments by zeroangel

12. Comment #189512 by thewhitepearl on June 6, 2008 at 11:37 am

Every time I see the phrase "The Big Bang" the song "The History of Everything" (better known as the theme song for the CBS sitcome The Big Bang Theory) gets stuck in my head. It's so catchy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6N3NUBW7dU&feature=related

Wasn't there another thought given to the parent-child universe about universes being formed from colliding universes? I don't remember all the details or if I'm thinking about something entirely different..

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

13. Comment #189515 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2008 at 11:46 am

thewhitepearl-

I googled "colliding universes" and found this:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19426034.200-is-the-evidence-for-alien-universes-all-around-us.html

Is this what you had in mind?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

14. Comment #189517 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 11:53 am

Comment #189511 by zeroangel

Good question. Things would only get that uncertain if the universe got down to Planck-scale sizes. It might not have. It could have "bounced" from something bigger.

The point I was making in my blog is that the universe, however it started, almost certainly didn't come from a singularity.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

15. Comment #189527 by Dinah on June 6, 2008 at 12:16 pm

This could be an answer to the question 'How did something come out of nothing?'

Other Comments by Dinah

16. Comment #189529 by ttheobald on June 6, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Whitepearl - I believe you're referring to the 11th-dimension "brane" (as in membrane) portion of string theory. The "branes", which are on universe scales, could collide/pass through one another, and the "friction" of such passage on their contact would generate the energy state that would appear to us as a "big bang."

Hope this helps -

T

Other Comments by ttheobald

17. Comment #189531 by thewhitepearl on June 6, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Quetzalcoatl- Yup! Exactly...Bubbles in space time continum..I think it was under the same discussion of string theory too now that I think about it..

EDIT:ttheobald..thank you! I was right about my string theory hunch

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

18. Comment #189532 by rod-the-farmer on June 6, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Up to now, I thought the universe was in Orions belt......

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

19. Comment #189534 by Quetzalcoatl on June 6, 2008 at 12:35 pm

rod-the-farmer

No, that's just the galaxy.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

20. Comment #189537 by ItAintNecessarilySo on June 6, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have proposed a model of the universe in which the Big Bang was not the beginning of time, but the beginning of another expansion in a cycle of expansions and contractions.

Their theory fits the current cosmological data we have, including the WMAP, as well as the Big Bang model, but is much less of a patchwork (the BB model has had to be modified many times as new information has come in and some of it's assumptions seem uncomfortably close to magic).

I happened to hear Steinhardt give a lecture two days ago at Fermi lab on their idea and he said we are on the cusp of getting results that could decide between the two models.

Their book "Endless Universe" is a fascinating read and gives a thrilling view behind the scenes of physics in action, including gatherings where they were racing with Stephen Hawking to be the first with results.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html

Other Comments by ItAintNecessarilySo

21. Comment #189541 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Comment #189531 by thewhitepearl

Quetzalcoatl- Yup! Exactly...Bubbles in space time continum.

I thought it was

"Eddies/Eddy's in the space time continuum"

Other Comments by epeeist

22. Comment #189543 by zeroangel on June 6, 2008 at 12:48 pm

@Zara:

What would an observer falling into a black hole see as they crossed the event horizon? That is, I understand once you cross the event horizon all paths lead to the center, so would they see utter blackness around them?

For the sake of arguement lets assume a super-massive black-hole so that a human observer in a spacecraft wouldn't get torn apart by spagettification as they got to the event horizon. Then what? Utter blackness and an instant before they were ripped apart because of the compression of space-time? Or would they be able to survive for a "time" to observe... what?

Are there answers to these questions?

Thanks!

Other Comments by zeroangel

23. Comment #189547 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 1:01 pm

What would an observer falling into a black hole see as they crossed the event horizon? That is, I understand once you cross the event horizon all paths lead to the center, so would they see utter blackness around them?

Things would look pretty normal, just distorted. It isn't that all paths only lead to the centre. It is that to avoid moving ever-faster to the centre, one would have to exceed the speed of light. It is still possible to see other things around you.

What you would see looking towards the outside the hole would be ever-more blue-shifted and time-speeded views of the outside universe.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

24. Comment #189553 by Border Collie on June 6, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Bruno, you are not alone ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

25. Comment #189554 by zeroangel on June 6, 2008 at 1:17 pm

@Zara:

I see. But then, at what point would the observer's time-speeded perception become such that it nears infinity? That is, isn't space-time distorted to infinity at the event horizon?

Wouldn't an observer outside the black hole see the spacecraft falling into the blackhole "freeze" at the event horizon? Would the observer inside observe the blue-shifted, time-speeded outside universe speed to near-infinite speeds?

Other Comments by zeroangel

26. Comment #189555 by CrimsonRick on June 6, 2008 at 1:26 pm

It's been a while since astrophysics and I was also struggling with that "something out of nothing" idea until someone brought up that known fact about matter and antimatter particles appearing briefly before annihilating each other. Is the universe just a larger version of that where a cold, empty part of a parent universe spawned our universe through a big bang? What is the anti version of it then? Is there a negative universe floating out there that could annihilate ours at any moment? Could that dark energy (I think that's what it is) that could pull the universe into the Big Crunch be that negative or opposite of our visible universe? Even though I think it makes up most of it. Still very exciting stuff.

Other Comments by CrimsonRick

27. Comment #189557 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 1:31 pm

I see. But then, at what point would the observer's time-speeded perception become such that it nears infinity? That is, isn't space-time distorted to infinity at the event horizon?

Wouldn't an observer outside the black hole see the spacecraft falling into the blackhole "freeze" at the event horizon? Would the observer inside observe the blue-shifted, time-speeded outside universe speed to near-infinite speeds?

Models of black holes are shifting. A recent suggestion by Lawrence Krauss is that they don't exist in the form we have thought.

However, assuming they do, it is likely that quantum effects come into play. You can't see the infinite future of the universe for two reasons: first you would have to be able to hover exactly at the position of the event horizon. Second, everything would be blurred and consist of invisible gamma rays. So, because you are falling in, it is sort of like the future light of the universe falls in after you, but can't catch up.

People outside the hole would not see you freeze permanently at the event horizon, as light from you would be red shifted further and further. Eventually they would see one last very, very red-shifted photon and then your image would fade.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

28. Comment #189559 by zeroangel on June 6, 2008 at 1:40 pm

@Zara:

I'm trying to understand the blue-shifted, time-speeded universe you spoke of earlier along with the invisible gamma rays you are talking about in this recent comment.

So, an observer is falling into a black hole, he looks away from the hole as he approaches the event horizon. He sees a more and more time-speeded, blue-shifted universe and then, right as he crosses the event horizon, he almost gets a glimpse of infinity, but then everything goes to invisible gamma rays and, utter darkness? Or things start going in reverse? Would you see "yourself" moving away from the event horizon backwards in time? Or... what?

Sorry if I am being a bother, I don't think I've ever really got a chance to ask someone knowledgable about this subject in the recent past.

Ref the observer outside the hole and the fading red-shifted image, thank you. It makes sense to me now :).

Other Comments by zeroangel

29. Comment #189565 by steveroot on June 6, 2008 at 2:05 pm

21. Comment #189541 by epeeist on June 6, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I thought it was
"Eddies/Eddy's in the space time continuum"

Is that the same as a "disturbance in the Force"?
Ste5e-wan

Other Comments by steveroot

30. Comment #189569 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 2:08 pm

So, an observer is falling into a black hole, he looks away from the hole as he approaches the event horizon. He sees a more and more time-speeded, blue-shifted universe and then, right as he crosses the event horizon, he almost gets a glimpse of infinity, but then everything goes to invisible gamma rays and, utter darkness?

Yes, that is what I understand happens. You wouldn't get a glimpse of infinity... things would blue shift to invisibility pretty fast.

Sorry if I am being a bother, I don't think I've ever really got a chance to ask someone knowledgable about this subject in the recent past.

You aren't a bother at all. This has been an interest of mine for decades, ever since I realised the implications of the event horizon when I read about it in a popular science book in the 70s. It can be hard to get a clear answer!

It is worth pointing out that current models of black holes have a lot of "holes" in. Some people think the event horizon is a special place, others don't. There have even been suggestions that spacetime simply can't form black holes, and changes its nature (gravastars).

It is still an open question if event horizons can actually form.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

31. Comment #189573 by steveroot on June 6, 2008 at 2:20 pm

28. Comment #189559 by zeroangel on June 6, 2008 at 1:40 pm
So, an observer is falling into a black hole, he looks away from the hole as he approaches the event horizon. He sees a more and more time-speeded, blue-shifted universe and then, right as he crosses the event horizon, he almost gets a glimpse of infinity, but then everything goes to invisible gamma rays and, utter darkness?

According to Neil deGrasse Tyson ("Death by Black Hole"- an enjoyable read), a person crossing the event horizon (assuming such existed, per Dr. Zara) would be ripped apart by tidal forces.
Ste5e

Other Comments by steveroot

32. Comment #189574 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 2:24 pm

According to Neil deGrasse Tyson ("Death by Black Hole"- an enjoyable read), a person crossing the event horizon (assuming such existed, per Dr. Zara) would be ripped apart by tidal forces.

Only with small black holes. One could fall into a very large one (such as those suspected to be at galactic cores) and feel nothing at all, until you came close to the centre.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

33. Comment #189575 by bollocks on June 6, 2008 at 2:25 pm

zara

creeping back

big fish in a little pool syndrome

Other Comments by bollocks

34. Comment #189576 by Lucas on June 6, 2008 at 2:25 pm

"Their model suggests that new universes could be created spontaneously from apparently empty space. "

I've been saying things like this for years. Glad they finally have some data to back up the idea. I think I've gone into the eternally exploding multiple universes thing before, but basically, yes, universes come out of apparently nothing. However, they do come from something, probably dark matter or other invisible forces, or from the collision of parts from different universes. There is no big crunch, nor is there any singularity. (Spot on, Steve, spot on.) Time is linear, to some degree, and space is infinite in every direction. There is no void, really, but there is probably a finite amount of matter and energy. Maybe not, though. Each universe may expand to the point of going cold and disapating, without contact with any other extra-universal matter or energy, depending on how much space there is inbetween expanding universes. The flat answer to what happened before the big bang is likely just what happened after, and has and will over and over again eternally. Matter and energy just change shape. It's like an endless fireworks show in space, where the space itself creates the explosions.

Other Comments by Lucas

35. Comment #189577 by mordacious1 on June 6, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Theories about this, time before big bang and multiple universes, abound. It is just that they have evidence, to support existing theories, from the CMB from 400,000 years ago. If this is so, this is exciting indeed.

Steve, you've been hanging around alot lately. Just can't stay away, can you?

Other Comments by mordacious1

36. Comment #189580 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Steve, you've been hanging around alot lately. Just can't stay away, can you?

If you think this is hanging around a lot, you should have seen me months ago!

Basically, I have done what I planned. In a day or two I should have finished a major project, which is a formal debate (which is now close to the length of a short novel). I have started a blog, and I have built up a store of responses and rebuttals with which to save myself a huge amount of time if I decide to deal with IDers. (I don't think I have any patience left for interacting with pure creationists).

I am going to work hard, however, to try and avoid this syndrome again:
http://xkcd.com/386/

Other Comments by Steve Zara

37. Comment #189583 by thewhitepearl on June 6, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Epeeist:

The bubbles I was referring to are represented as seperate universes in the space time. I believe it's thought that each universe is a bubble with it's own space time though.

I thought eddies was the term used for different turbulances within the space time.

Steve Zara and Zero:

I heard that if you fell into a black hole you would be stretched as thin as a spaghetti noodle. What also interests me is the concept of the white hole.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

38. Comment #189591 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Comment #189583 by thewhitepearl

The bubbles I was referring to are represented as seperate universes in the space time.

In a model called "eternal inflation", this is the case.

I believe it's thought that each universe is a bubble with it's own space time though.

This is true of other models.

I thought eddies was the term used for different turbulances within the space time.

This was a pun from The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"Eddies in the space time continum!"
"Who is Eddy?"

I heard that if you fell into a black hole you would be stretched as thin as a spaghetti noodle.

In the black holes we encounter in nature, that is what happens at some point before you hit the centre,

What also interests me is the concept of the white hole.

There are the mathematical opposite of black holes, but very unlikely. After all, where does all the mass and energy the emit come from?

Black holes eventually radiate all the mass back out into space again, as Hawking radiation, so it can't come from them (there once was an idea that black holes are white holes could be linked).

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #189593 by thewhitepearl on June 6, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Steve-thank you for explanding my knowledge.

The way the black hole/white hole concept was explained to me..Or at least how I understood it; was that whatever was sucked into the black hole came out from the white hole and into a whole new universe. I didn't know that the idea about them being linked was squashed.

I'm playing catch up.

I wish we could send some sort of craft with a video camera attached and see what happens.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

40. Comment #189594 by Podaar on June 6, 2008 at 3:25 pm

36. Comment #189580 by Steve Zara

I am going to work hard, however, to try and avoid this syndrome again:
http://xkcd.com/386/

Steve,

I can so relate with that goal. My second marriage ended because of distance between my spouse and me partially brought on by my fascination with the growing internet communities of the time (1987 or so). Too many nights of letting your spouse go to bed with out you (regardless of the reason) can make for a permanently empty bed.

I only visit internet communities at work now. That way the only thing I have to loose is my job. :)

-- Gregg

[edited to fix my terrible spelling]

Other Comments by Podaar

41. Comment #189595 by zeroangel on June 6, 2008 at 3:28 pm

@Zara:

Thank you for your help in understanding these things.

I have another thing thats been interesting me though, if you would please care to indulge me.

I am interested in what Lucas was talking about ref: what is beyond the "boundry" of the universe.

That is, I understand that all distant objects are expanding away from the Earth at more or less equal speeds. Since it would be silly to assume the Earth is at the center of the universe, there is a model that says the universe is expanding like a 3 dimension "surface" on a 4 (multi?) dimensional "balloon."

Does this mean if one was able to take off on a spacecraft moving at near the speed of light in one direction they would then shortly (due to space-time compression) find themselves back at thier original location (in the far future) having "circumnavigated" the universe?

Or would the universe expand beyond them? Or would it collaspe around them? Or are all these things possibilities considering what we don't know?

Other Comments by zeroangel

42. Comment #189599 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 3:35 pm

That is, I understand that all distant objects are expanding away from the Earth at more or less equal speeds. Since it would be silly to assume the Earth is at the center of the universe, there is a model that says the universe is expanding like a 3 dimension "surface" on a 4 (multi?) dimensional "balloon."

Not quite. You don't need the 4th dimension. All you need to think of is the substance of space is expanding. A better analogy is to imagine an infinite load of bread rising - everything separates, even though there is no centre.

Does this mean if one was able to take off on a spacecraft moving at near the speed of light in one direction they would then shortly (due to space-time compression) find themselves back at thier original location (in the far future) having "circumnavigated" the universe?

It is possible if the universe is finite.

Or would the universe expand beyond them? Or would it collaspe around them? Or are all these things possibilities considering what we don't know?

They are all possibilities.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #189609 by Lucas on June 6, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Steve, your bread metaphor is awesome. I really like the idea of infinite, eternal, multidirectional expansion, and the multiverse being kind of squishy and constantly moving. I guess what I was saying above could be said as: universes could be kind of like cookies on a baking sheet when you don't space them out enough and they expand and merge into each other.

Other Comments by Lucas

44. Comment #189614 by burn0gas on June 6, 2008 at 5:12 pm

So as to not confuse the general public, physicists need to stop using the word "ordered" and start using another word like homogeneous or the likes. The universe didn't start out "ordered" in the sense that the general public thinks about it - and it only builds the wall of religious fundamentalists that read the word "ordered" in the wrong way.

Other Comments by burn0gas

45. Comment #189618 by Quine on June 6, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Yes, burn0gas, it is another one of those specific vocabulary things where the physicists know what they mean, but the public gets it wrong. Most of us in science and technology are just not used to taking politics into consideration when picking words. But now we have these issues of politics in science education, so I agree that we should change.

Other Comments by Quine

46. Comment #189624 by Steve Zara on June 6, 2008 at 6:08 pm

So as to not confuse the general public, physicists need to stop using the word "ordered" and start using another word like homogeneous or the likes. The universe didn't start out "ordered" in the sense that the general public thinks about it

But it did. The universe started of in a low entropy state. That is the whole foundation of the second law of physics. The broken egg point that Carroll uses is correct. This is the kind of "order" that the public things of. The universe was more ordered that it could have been in just the everyday sense that an intact egg is more ordered than a broken one.

The universe may not have had that much order, as the expansion allows much more possible entropy, but ordered it certainly was, and in the "common sense" way.

What matters is that it was astronomically less ordered than the mind of any creator.

We really shouldn't be censoring scientific discussion because of the religious.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

47. Comment #189630 by Quine on June 6, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Steve, I would not advocate censorship. I do advocate taking more effort to choose our words so as to better add to the public understanding of science.

Most of the public may "get" it in the case of the broken egg, but when you tell them that the hot gases in their car engine cylinders were more ordered just before the expansion stroke, most are not going to get it, although this is closer to what the physicists are talking about with the early Universe.

At least, clauses can be added to help things. For example, one could say, "and became less ordered, in the sense of being more randomly spread in a bigger space, and thus, less hot and compact."

I took burn0gas to mean that it would be fine if the public took "ordered" to mean "hot and compact" but they generally don't. burn0gas, did I misunderstand?

Other Comments by Quine

48. Comment #189633 by dragonfirematrix on June 6, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Other theories about multiple occurrences of our universes are topics of repeating discussion on boards. I believe the universe is endless, and I believe the universe is forever repeating. I do not believe there was ever a parent universe. The universe is endless, and the universe has no boarders. The universe simply exists because it is impossible for the state of "nothing" to exist. The Abrahamic god(s) did not create the universe. The universe just is.

Below is the text of my Haydron Collider post:

I think this Hadron experiment is great. I am glad to see that science is continuing to understand, improve, and prove our existence.

However…just a thought…

I have often wondered if the Big Bang has happened an endless number of times and will forever happen an endless number of times. I just cannot believe the Big Bang happened only once!

I think about it this way. The universe has always been here and it will always be here. I believe the universe is infinitely recycling. I do not believe the universe came from "nothing," and I do not believe "nothing" will ever exist. I here the matter/anti-matter discussion, but how can there be nothing? It seems to me that there should always be "something," and that "something" is forever evolving and changing.

Please, hang in here with me for a minute :)

I believe the universe is born, lives, dies, and it is reborn over immense cycles of time. During these immense cycles of time, the universe goes from Big Bang to expansion, from expansion to stabilization, from stabilization to contraction, from contraction to immense compression (BDBH), from the BDBH to instability, and finally the BDBH commits another Big Bang.

I do not believe in gods, but the next time around, insects may be the super intelligence at the top of the new Earth's food chain, and their god maybe Mothra! Hey, folks, just a little humor for what is likely to be the reality of the universe and our existence.

** By the way, BDBH is my acronym for big dam# black hole.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

49. Comment #189646 by Luis_Cayetano on June 6, 2008 at 9:43 pm

According to Victor Stenger, the universe started in a state of maximum disorder for its size. As it expanded, there was more room for order to arise, but only because there was more room to dump the disorder that "paid" for it.

Other Comments by Luis_Cayetano

50. Comment #189647 by steveroot on June 6, 2008 at 9:49 pm

48. Comment #189633 by dragonfirematrix on June 6, 2008 at 7:25 pm

The universe is endless, and the universe has no boarders.

What are all of us here on Earth... chopped liver? ;-)

I believe the universe is born, lives, dies, and it is reborn over immense cycles of time. During these immense cycles of time, the universe goes from Big Bang to expansion, from expansion to stabilization, from stabilization to contraction, from contraction to immense compression (BDBH), from the BDBH to instability, and finally the BDBH commits another Big Bang.

Apparently, the expansion of the universe is accelerating: http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophysics/what-is-dark-energy
It would seem the universe, in the light of this, is a one-shot deal.
Ste5e

Other Comments by steveroot