Cosmology Multiverse News

Multiverse cosmology: Pop science offers loyalty

Spread the love

From New Scientist:

Inflation is dead, long live inflation! The very results hailed this year as demonstrating a consequence of inflationary models of the universe – and therefore pointing to the existence of multiverses – now seem to do the exact opposite. If the results can be trusted at all, they now suggest inflation is wrong, raising the possibility of cyclic universes that existed before the big bang.

Cyclic universes that existed before the big bang?

Oh yes, of course. Because they must check out of Hilbert’s Hotel first. Bill infinitely high.

This mainly shows how much pop science media today depend on anything-goes cosmology to rescue their pet theories.

See also: As if the multiverse wasn’t bizarre enough …meet Many Worlds

But who needs reality-based thinking anyway? Not the new cosmologists

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Multiverse cosmology: Pop science offers loyalty

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to

    Excerpt page 2: “Steinhardt favours newer theories that don’t require inflation to smooth out the universe. Instead of relying on inflation, which would produce big gravitational waves in the CMB, Steinhardt suggests the universe might have existed before the big bang, and slowly collapsed in a big crunch, before bouncing back and expanding anew. He thinks that could explain the smoothness of the universe, without invoking multiverses”,,,

    Dr. Gordon, at the 3:40 minute mark of the following video, states that the fine-tuning of the initial ‘1 in 10^10^123’ entropic state of the universe gets even finer, if you can imagine such a thing, if you have some pre-Big Bang bounces.

    The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse – Dr. Bruce Gordon – video
    http://vimeo.com/34468027

    Moreover, wasn’t the notion of a ‘bouncing universe’ refuted several years ago by Boomerang??

    Refutation Of Oscillating Universe – Michael Strauss
    https://vimeo.com/91775976

    Evidence For Flat Universe – Boomerang Project
    http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Art.....-flat.html
    http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Art.....megal3.gif
    updated boomerang – picture
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....bined1.gif

    Of related interest to the universe being ‘flat’, is this interesting tidbit,,

    How the Power of Intention Alters Matter – Dr. William A. Tiller
    Excerpt: “Most people think that the matter is empty, but for internal self consistency of quantum mechanics and relativity theory, there is required to be the equivalent of 10 to 94 grams of mass energy, each gram being E=MC2 kind of energy. Now, that’s a huge number, but what does it mean practically? Practically, if I can assume that the universe is flat, and more and more astronomical data is showing that it’s pretty darn flat, if I can assume that, then if I take the volume or take the vacuum within a single hydrogen atom, that’s about 10 to the minus 23 cubic centimeters. If I take that amount of vacuum and I take the latent energy in that, there is a trillion times more energy there than in all of the mass of all of the stars and all of the planets out to 20 billion light-years. That’s big, that’s big. And if consciousness allows you to control even a small fraction of that, creating a big bang is no problem.”
    – Dr. William Tiller – has been a professor at Stanford U. in the Department of materials science & Engineering
    http://www.beyondtheordinary.n.....ller.shtml

    Verses and Music:

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    Job 38:4-5
    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you know.
    Who measured it? I am sure you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?”

    ROYAL TAILOR – HOLD ME TOGETHER – music video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpJ2FeeJgw

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    correction to Tiller quote:

    “Most people think that the vacuum is empty”,,
    Quote at 23:44 minute mark
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw8dKOZqoFw&feature=player_detailpage#t=1424

  3. 3
    awstar says:

    BA posted:

    Excerpt page 2: “Steinhardt favours newer theories that don’t require inflation to smooth out the universe. Instead of relying on inflation, which would produce big gravitational waves in the CMB, Steinhardt suggests the universe might have existed before the big bang, and slowly collapsed in a big crunch, before bouncing back and expanding anew. He thinks that could explain the smoothness of the universe, without invoking multiverses”,,,

    Dr. Gordon, at the 3:40 minute mark of the following video, states that the fine-tuning of the initial ’1 in 10^10^123? entropic state of the universe gets even finer, if you can imagine such a thing, if you have some pre-Big Bang bounces.

    This is sounding a lot like some interpretations of Genesis Chapter one where in verse 1 the heavens and earth were created and in verse two (perhaps sometime later, it doesn’t say here, perhaps after the angelic rebellion in heaven) there was this formless mass of the abyss and the spirit of God hovered over it. and then it inflated in an instant with extreme precision to what we observe and live in now.

    But of course Steinhardt’s theory won’t gain any traction — only because creationists can make too much out of it.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    as to this quote from the article,,

    Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation – 25 September 2014
    Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous.,,,
    Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation’s other problems.
    Meet the multiverse
    Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true.
    “The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn’t end the way these simplistic calculations suggest,” he says. “Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it’s physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace
    Steinhardt says the point of inflation was to explain a remarkably simple universe. “So the last thing in the world you should be doing is introducing a multiverse of possibilities to explain such a simple thing,” he says. “I think it’s telling us in the clearest possible terms that we should be able to understand this and when we understand it it’s going to come in a model that is extremely simple and compelling. And we thought inflation was it – but it isn’t.”
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....CajrGl0y00

    It was humorous for me to see the materialist’s ‘extremely simple and compelling’ model, i.e. inflation, (which was originally postulated with the rather modest goal of explaining why the universe is ‘surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous’ (i.e. or the initial ’roundness’ of the Cosmic Background Radiation)), have such an extremely difficult time in explaining what it initially set out to explain, (Namely the flatness and roundness of the universe).
    The reason why this extreme difficulty for materialism/naturalism was humorous for me, is because, besides the fact materialism/naturalism never predicted a beginning for the universe in the first place, is that materialism/naturalism also never predicted that the universe would be ‘surprisingly’ flat and round in its overall structure. Yet the Bible, besides correctly predicting the beginning for the universe centuries before it was discovered by modern science, also correctly that the universe is ‘surprisingly’ flat and round in its overall structure,,

    Job 38:4-5
    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
    Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?

    Proverbs 8:26-27
    While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

    Job 26:10
    He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

    A few notes in that regards:

    “The curvature of the space time of the universe is ‘flat’ to at least 1 in 10^15 places of accuracy”
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

    “The Universe today is actually very close to the most unlikely state of all, absolute flatness. And that means it must have been born in an even flatter state, as Dicke and Peebles, two of the Princeton astronomers involved in the discovery of the 3 K background radiation, pointed out in 1979. Finding the Universe in a state of even approximate flatness today is even less likely than finding a perfectly sharpened pencil balancing on its point for millions of years, for, as Dicke and Peebles pointed out, any deviation of the Universe from flatness in the Big Bang would have grown, and grown markedly, as the Universe expanded and aged. Like the pencil balanced on its point and given the tiniest nudges, the Universe soon shifts away from perfect flatness.”
    ~ John Gribbin, In Search of the Big Bang

    The Cosmic Background Radiation
    Excerpt: These fluctuations are extremely small, representing deviations from the average of only about 1/100,000 of the average temperature of the observed background radiation. The highly isotropic nature of the cosmic background radiation indicates that the early stages of the Universe were almost completely uniform. This raises two problems for (a naturalistic understanding of) the big bang theory.
    First, when we look at the microwave background coming from widely separated parts of the sky it can be shown that these regions are too separated to have been able to communicate with each other even with signals traveling at light velocity. Thus, how did they know to have almost exactly the same temperature? This general problem is called the horizon problem.
    Second, the present Universe is homogenous and isotropic, but only on very large scales. For scales the size of superclusters and smaller the luminous matter in the universe is quite lumpy, as illustrated in the following figure. ,,, Thus, the discovery of small deviations from smoothness (anisotopies) in the cosmic microwave background is welcome, for it provides at least the possibility for the seeds around which structure formed in the later Universe. However, as we shall see, we are still far from a quantitative understanding of how this came to be.
    http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/ast.....y/cbr.html

    From initial entropic considerations, the precision of the initial isotropic (uniform) condition of the ‘sphere of the universe’ really stands out:

    The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose
    Excerpt: “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”

    How special was the big bang? – Roger Penrose
    Excerpt: This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.
    (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)

    Moreover, best of all, we can now see the sphere of the universe,,,

    Planck’s view of the Universe (layers of filtering) – Oct. 18, 2013 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn0FgOwyu0w

    Planck Cruise to L2 (mapping CMBR) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piYn0nbbJcs

    The Known Universe by AMNH – video – (please note the ‘centrality’ of the Earth in the universe at the 3:36 minute mark in the video)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

    Also of interest are two other places in the universe where ‘unexpected’ roundness is discovered:

    Sun’s Almost Perfectly Round Shape Baffles Scientists – (Aug. 16, 2012) —
    Excerpt: The sun is nearly the roundest object ever measured. If scaled to the size of a beach ball, it would be so round that the difference between the widest and narrow diameters would be much less than the width of a human hair.,,, They also found that the solar flattening is remarkably constant over time and too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....150801.htm

    and also this ‘unexpected’ roundness:

    Bucky Balls – Andy Gion
    Excerpt: Buckyballs (C60; Carbon 60) are the roundest and most symmetrical large molecule known to man. Buckministerfullerine continues to astonish with one amazing property after another. C60 is the third major form of pure carbon; graphite and diamond are the other two. Buckyballs were discovered in 1985,,,
    http://www.3rd1000.com/bucky/bucky.htm

    The delicate balance at which carbon is synthesized in stars is truly a work of art. Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), a famed astrophysicist, is the scientist who established the nucleo-synthesis of heavier elements within stars as mathematically valid in 1946. Hoyle is said to have converted from staunch atheism into being a Theist/Deist after discovering the precise balance at which carbon is synthesized in stars. Years after Sir Fred discovered the stunning precision with which carbon is synthesized in stars he stated this:

    “I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.”
    Sir Fred Hoyle – “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12

    I agree wholeheartedly with Sir Fred Hoyle

    Verse and Music:

    Isaiah 45:18-19
    For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”

    Billy Preston – ‘Round in Circles – Midnight Special 1973 HQ
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDehYXKI31g

Leave a Reply