Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New theory of origin of our universe depends on ghostly force


In the beginning …,

OUR universe rose from the ashes of a dying cosmos, thanks to a push from a ghostly force. So says a model supporting the idea that the universe was born not with a bang, but a bounce.

What’s more, the theory would do away with the popular notion that the infant cosmos rapidly ballooned in size during a period called inflation.

No, this theory originates at Princeton:

Inflation is more of an explanation than a predictive model of our universe, says Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University. So for about a decade, he and his colleagues have advocated the cyclic universe as an alternative. In their theory, a previous universe went through a phase of slow contraction, crunching space-time. Then something reversed the process and it expanded again to make a new universe.

So that’s it, then? Oh, wait:

Steinhardt admits that this bounce model has its demons. For one, the ghost field is just a placeholder, and the true nature of the one that gave us a push is as mysterious as whatever would have driven inflation. (New Scientist)

Okay. Someone. Fetch the vacuum cleaner.

No, cosmology is self-refuting since you need to get outside the object you study to predict its movement. Observing and modelling isn't experimenting. No one has ever created a black hole or a moon in the lab. The only proof to the model would be to actually recreate the Universe. Since dark matter hasn't shown up as WIMP and macho reek of russel's teapot (ironic hypocrisy), the model has become circular...i.e we know relativity is true therefore dark matter is true since only with dark matter we can elegantly model general relativity. Self refuting logic at its best. Just like the infinite universe stupidity. Physics deals with measurable i.e. finite properties. How stupid could the cosmologists be to claim it is infinite? If it is finite it has to have a center. Thus the copernican principle is stupid since it relies on ignorance. Since all cosmologies rest on the copernican principle they are all wrong. And don't bring about the observations which are collected from the copernican principle. Loghin
Cosmologists can't do experiments easily. They have to have theories and then wait for right technology to come along to test those theories. Based on what little can be observed, theories are made and tested. Some are right, many discarded. I guess as long as we have ego clashes, we will have many theories and plausible explanations among rival groups of physicists. The questions that need to be answered are also becoming sophisticated, we are entering weird world of Quantum mechanics, so we will keep getting weirder and weirder theories. This is definitely not the end of weirdness! If we can convert God into an equation and give a name other than God, there will be far more believers! selvaRajan
vjtorley, appeals to the supernatural are only ruled out of court if they actually make sense, in principle. That is, one posits God as a First Cause because there is no special warrant for an infinite regress of anterior causes at the same level. So one might assume a first cause at a higher level and call it, if you like, God. That is not accepted because it makes far too much sense. And it forces everything that follows to make sense. = if it is a force what type of force is it? And that's bad for the vacuum cleaner industry. ;) News
Stetnhardt FYI was one of the original proponents of pure inflation when he co-authored the seminal paper about it with Alan Guth in Scientific American in 1984. I remember when it came out it was very controversial and Steinhardt has been walking back his support of that as a pure "origins' theory ever since. He acknowledges inflation as one of the features of his colliding 4-space M-brane theory in 3-d space but not as an ultimate cause, I think. quantumman
Hi News, I briefly discussed Steinhardt's latest theory at the end of this post: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/new-cosmology-paper-by-skeptical-scientists-lends-support-to-the-fine-tuning-argument/ Like you, I'm highly skeptical about the ghost field. It's ad hoc, and it can't be characterized physically. If this is acceptable practice in science, then one wonders why appeals to the supernatural are ruled out of court. vjtorley
The bounce model doesn't solve anything: 1. It is believed that all 4 fundamental forces came out of singularity of BigBang, but it is not known why gravitational force is so weak. Bounce model doesn't solve this mystery 2. In BigBang theory we need to explain only inflation. In bounce model both inflation and force which brought about singularity before the inflation has to be explained. 3. Bounce would posits high entropy universe existed before it was crushed to singularity. Where did that universe come from? 4. What was the shape of early universe - Flat, Open or closed ? It is important to know because that would determine the matter density. Since the universe became a singularity, it follows that the universe before that had to be of closed type- which is absurd.How can a closed universe spawn another closed universe unless there was a BigBang in between? The universe sequence will be universe -> Bang->Universe-> Bang-> ? By encouraging bounce theory, all that these Princeton guys are doing is nothing more than muddying the water further. selvaRajan
I don't get it. All forces are ghostly. Mung
LOL. From Princeton, no less. Mapou

Leave a Reply