The Birth of the Universe - Scientific Breakthrough

by cofty 81 Replies latest social current

• 

  prologos

  twitch, thanks for the clarifying links.

  when I used the word Universe it refers to ALL that exists in space as it emerged at the beginning and is moving through time since.

  The belief and the theories of existence before, outside, in the future of that realm allowed for the use of the term

  'cosmos', less specific and less UNIque than UNIverse.

  cosmos would allow for such possibilities as the big-crunch/ascillating not just expanding universe, multiverses, baby universes and the pre-big bang scenarios of whatever the 'virtual energy fluctuations' stand for.

  locally we live in the universe, this discovery, as a new article in 'the new scientist' points out, is a step toward better researching the existence of a larger ORDER or Cosmos.
• 

  Viviane

  you well defined the limits of your understanding. there is more out there then you are aware of.

  Sorry, you don't get to call people limited when you are trying to re-define words to mean what you mistakenly wrote. Of course there is more out that. That's what I've been saying, that there is something we have no idea about. YOU were ther one trying to say we knew or had some idea, attempting to claim more knowledge than there is.

  In the future, don't attempt to blame me for what you are doing.

  Comments on this discovery, as in 'New scientist' artcles clearly shows that researchers are looking beyond the beginning of THIS UNIVERSE (the ALL) into the pre-big-bang COSMIC time as a scource or link of the gravitity waves, that show what happened before light could emerge from this cauldron.

  They clearly do NOT show that at ALL. They are coming up with hypotheses based on the new discovery. Let's look at a quote from New Scientist.

  "Wave hello to the multiverse? Ripples in the very fabric of the cosmos, unveiled this week, are allowing us to peer further back in time than anyone thought possible, showing us what was happening in the first slivers of a second after the big bang.

  The discovery of these primordial waves could solidify the idea that our young universe went through a rapid growth spurt called inflation. And that theory is linked to the idea that the universe is constantly giving birth to smaller "pocket" universes within an ever-expanding multiverse."

  Bolding is mine. Nowhere does it say they are looking beyond the beginning of THIS universe. You are clearly and plainly flat out wrong.

  not that I am a fan of the multiverse or Sir Roger Penrose's ideas, but to think there was nothing, no time, no energy before our arrangement (Universe, ALL) came along, is far fetched.

  That DOES seem counter-intuitive, which is why scientists are working very hard to learn things they don't know, but you are claiming that knowledge is there that isn't and re-defining words, which you do not get to do.
• 

  Viviane

  when I used the word Universe it refers to ALL that exists in space as it emerged at the beginning and is moving through time since.

  No no no. All that exists is moving through and with spacetime. Space and time are the same thing.

  locally we live in the universe, this discovery, as a new article in 'the new scientist' points out, is a step toward better researching the existence of a larger ORDER or Cosmos.

  Again, no, you don't get to re-define words all by yourself. The Cosmos IS the universe. There MAY be a larger order and when that is discovered we may need to re-define the words, but you don't get to use wrong definitions and non-existent knowledge to do that.
• 

  Viviane

  Viviane,...A collective of Ferraris revving their heads off, will only be as good as the one engine which lasts longest.

  You would have to physically join the engines or modify to increase better performance.

  That doesn't make sense. Why would it only be as good as the one that last the longest? What work are they trying to do? How are they a collective?

  A collective of computers working together can sustain the failure of many components. There is built in redundancy, spare, extra capacity, etc.

  Not possible with the human brain.That capacity remains within one brain.The only difference being influence to change opinion.

  Of course it is. That's why, when solving a problem, you break it up into chunks and put different people or teams of people on it to solve different portions of the problem and then, when each component is solved, you assemble the answers together. Happens literally all the time.

  The physical make up of the brain puts the same constraints on all, otherwise we are talking supernatural which is a whole different ball game.

  Nope, not at all. People have different skills and expertise and you apply as I said above.

  The spark of creation for example we can only ever investigate within the constraints of our capacity, otherwise you would have to argue our brains have limitless capacity.

  Of course. It is logically impossible to understand something we don't have the capacity to understand.
• 

  wallsofjericho

  whenever I talk about the big bang theory to j-dubs i always use the "Jehovah" angle to keep their spidey-senses from tingling.

  Ironic that the dubs will accept the evolution of the univers over billions of years but as soon as you talk about dinosuars their eyes gloss over and then insist they were killed in the flood.

  how can you accept the creation of matter and planets in the universe, processes that repeat over billions of years and then get to the dinosuars and insist science "doesn't know anything" and that mountains were created by the wieght of water that swirled around the atmosphere unitl God made it fall down?

  So God uses physics to create the universe naturally but then plays magic tricks with earth? what a joke
• 

  Caedes

  Caedes, re : the not too empty VOID: amaze your self and read Penrose.

  Others have already pointed out that the universe is by definition everything, look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me. So my point still stands that the universe isn't expanding into anything. What has Penrose got to do with the fact that there isn't anything 'outside' the universe? Are you talking about his hypothesis regarding a prior universe?

  This detection of an early wave pattern is good news because information is often encoded in frequencies.(even a feature of the string theory) The Penrose theories account for Information passing through the big bang squeeze events. yes time, (not movement through t) and energy are present in the void of these models.

  Information is often encoded in frequencies that is true, what has that got to do with this discovery? By all means prove me wrong but I'm not aware that Penrose had proved his hypothesis (it's thus not a theory). With the following sentence I have no idea what you are trying to say, your words have no meaning.

  We do not exactly know what lies beyond the universe, in the rest of the cosmos, but the closer we get to the curtain, the better we can sense what is behind it. this discovery takes us a step closer.

  Nothing lies beyond the universe, this word has a clearly defined meaning that is accepted by all rational people, you using it differently helps no one and adds nothing to this thread. Thus there is no curtain and nothing beyond it, Your search for the wizard will have to take place elsewhere.
• 

  prologos

  we are talking possibiliyies here, and once you accept the idea that there were prior universes (with continuity of information as per Sir R.P.), or the hypothesis of mutiverses, that somehow have similar, but divers condition to have life (or not) it is clear that there is more beyond the HORIZOn or curtain of our sensors.

  The fact that OTHERS link this early gravity wave-pattern to these above proposals, shows there is food for thought expressed by my posts. and

  I did not read the "New Scientist" article before posting. I was surprised to have my thoughyt seconded that way. also:

  The idea is also circulating in the same journals, that 'dark energy' (not the Casimir effect) is afeature of the cosmos, an expression of the cosmological constant. The universe because of it's expansion aquires ever more dark energy, driving the observed acceleration.

  This opens the possibility that this situation also existed before the expansion of energy, space and matter started.

  If you can refute these points one by one, everyone will learn and appreciate it.

  simple questions will produce learned answers.
• 

  jgnat

  Your overweening imagination prologos, overleaps the math. Your questions are not simple; they are swiss cheese. They make good poetry but they cannot be used to build a testable proposition.

  Most exciting that the scientists in this case built a testable proposition and then found evidence.
• 

  Laika

  What bearing on our lives, whatever happened we are all the result.Its surely more important how we exist NOW , and our dealings with our fellowman for the good.

  But this is not really an either/or proposition now is it?
• 

  TD

  Very cool!