This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth

Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth - Comments

Pertwee's Bouffant's Avatar Comment 1 by Pertwee's Bouffant

Interesting stuff. Made my eyes water reading it this early though. Still waiting for the coffee to kick in.

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:49:00 UTC | #248024

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 2 by rod-the-farmer

Fascinating that we have so many people on this site, who watch for news like this. I would have to spend my entire day browsing the web for neat stuff, and I find a lot of it already laid out for me here.

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:51:00 UTC | #248025

Deadity's Avatar Comment 3 by Deadity

"They are generally thought to be about 10-35 meter in size, far too tiny to be seen by today's most powerful instruments, which probe distances as short as 10-18 meter"

Man, science hasn't progressed quite as quickly as I thought. Our probes suck.

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:55:00 UTC | #248026

dhudson0001's Avatar Comment 4 by dhudson0001

Wonderful article. Nothing like waking up to reports of a new theory of the birth of our universe :)

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:37:00 UTC | #248044

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 5 by Steve Zara

I do wish people would use the term "singularity" with more care. Singularities are flaws in our models of reality. There is no reason to think that they are features of reality.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:45:00 UTC | #248046

King of NH's Avatar Comment 6 by King of NH

Bumbles Bounce! (Damn you, Dawkins! Now I have a viral meme stuck in my head!)

This is fascinating. It could be completely wrong, but it does seem to tidy up some of the mess in astrophysics. When I have time, I'll have to audit some courses and revisit this. It sucks there's so much to learn in this world and I have only one brain to absorb it.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 01:40:00 UTC | #248059

dvespertilio's Avatar Comment 7 by dvespertilio

Leave it to the universe to always bounce back!

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:20:00 UTC | #248072

Michael_Oudenalder's Avatar Comment 8 by Michael_Oudenalder

Very interesting article indeed. The last time I heard about developments on the research of the creation of the universe, scientists thought there was no dimension of time before the Big Bang. Thank goodness they stepped away from that =)

And yeah, just like King of NH, I'd have to rekindle my knowledge about physics before I understand all about this new theory.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:51:00 UTC | #248082

Jamie V's Avatar Comment 9 by Jamie V

Using the difference equations, we can try to reconstruct the deep past.


So cool!

"A long time ago in a singularity far, far away..."

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:06:00 UTC | #248087

Rosbif's Avatar Comment 10 by Rosbif

Love the idea, but gave up tryng to research all the maths that go with it.

Ah space/time atoms. Just what we need.
Space/time atoms so closely packed together that they create a fabric.
But did god have a hand in this fabric?
Did he cut the cloth?
Was he a tailor? Maybe the Jews were on to something after all.

I can feel a new cult coming on. The Armarniists.
The distant galaxies creating that shiny affect on god's new suit, the planets providing the designer buttons.
With a dusty old book and the promise of life on the spring collection after death, I could probably even persuade Tom Cruise on this one.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:05:00 UTC | #248103

Azven's Avatar Comment 11 by Azven

Deadity: Half way there...

BTW, it's hopefully obvious from the context, but just in case... '10-35 meter' means 10 to the power of -35 meters (10 meters divided by a trillion trillion trillion).

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:08:00 UTC | #248105

lol mahmood's Avatar Comment 12 by lol mahmood

That straining noise you can hear is the sound of all the 'uncaused cause' cosmological christian apologists trying to shoehorn 'goddidit' into the hypothesis....

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:20:00 UTC | #248108

isaone's Avatar Comment 13 by isaone

In a similar vein I read an excellent book on similar approach called "The Endless Universe" http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html

After the third time through it began to make some sense . Very interesting but clearly over my pay grade.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 04:34:00 UTC | #248110

Logicel's Avatar Comment 14 by Logicel

I suspect the author loves his work. His writing style allows his passion to shine through without mucking up the clarity of his prose.

The right amount of cosmic forgetfulness may come to the rescue by presenting the young, growing universe with a clean slate irrespective of all the mess that may have built up before.
____

The universe suffers from amnesia?

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:25:00 UTC | #248131

Chrysippus_Maximus's Avatar Comment 15 by Chrysippus_Maximus

Woo! Love infinities.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:36:00 UTC | #248136

Swordmaiden's Avatar Comment 16 by Swordmaiden

Oh, I get SO frustrated ! I SO MUCH want to understand this as its something I am so interested in. But I do not have a mathematical brain so it is like reading Chinese...all this is like a foreign language which I am not privvy to! I wish someone would write a "..for Dummies" version for people like me,with simple pictures and diagrams, (I work better with images....maths just makes my brain shut down)I can't be the only one on this site who isn't a scientist boffin person? I still don't understand what "Relativity" is!! Anything I read to try to learn just assumes you already know all this basic stuff... I DON'T but I really want to!!!
SOMEONE HELP!

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:01:00 UTC | #248147

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 17 by aquilacane

I can't wait until science accepts that time is nothing more than an observable concept and not actually real. Perhaps when we replace time with the equation that properly calculates the effect we observe (some sort of energy transfer) we can do all of these equations again. Yeah!

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:09:00 UTC | #248151

Mbee's Avatar Comment 18 by Mbee

Swordmaiden
You might try and get a copy of 'Relativity for the Layman'. It is an old book 1969, so it is probably out of print but Amazon (US) has an old copy (expensive though).

Don't know any books on the big bang though that I can recommend - anyone else?

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:12:00 UTC | #248152

Swordmaiden's Avatar Comment 19 by Swordmaiden

Mbee

Thanks, I will have a look. Grateful for all suggestions.

I thought of looking at children's science books as they might be more my level. I LOVE Prof Dawkins Xmas Lectures; I just have to accept that I have the scientific capacity of an 8 year old.....I am good at lots of other things though....not a complete divvy! I blame it on bad maths teachers !

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:23:00 UTC | #248158

SomeDanGuy's Avatar Comment 20 by SomeDanGuy

Interesting stuff. Made my eyes water reading it this early though. Still waiting for the coffee to kick in.

Heh, I was about to say something similar, Bouffant. Gotta get a mugfull of coffee for these giant physics articles. I find them fascinating, but it's so far out of my knowledge base that it takes a lot of concentration.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:32:00 UTC | #248165

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 21 by Dhamma

This is probably the first article I've read before being published here *w000t*

It's a facinating article, but I'm eagerly awaiting Øystein's comment on this.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:35:00 UTC | #248168

zeroangel's Avatar Comment 22 by zeroangel

Swordmaiden:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM

Relativity and Simultaneity explained (at least part of it).

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 06:41:00 UTC | #248174

Scep's Avatar Comment 23 by Scep

From the flat earth to the universe, the big bang, the multiverse and the big bounce.

Does it all fit into, "simplicity ends up in complexity" and then turns around. Let's hope we don't blow ourselves to bits, physically, environmentally or financially, in order to start from scratch.

Its wonderful to have an imagination!

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:36:00 UTC | #248215

NewEnglandBob's Avatar Comment 24 by NewEnglandBob

Swordmaiden:

I have recently read 6 Physics books by Feynman, Susskind, Rosenblum & Kuttner and McMahon but I still have some difficulty understanding what is in this article and I will read it a couple more times at least.

What this shows me is that I need to read more books and articles by Smolen, Bojowald and others.

For me, this is not frustrating, but exciting that there is so much more to learn.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:45:00 UTC | #248256

decius's Avatar Comment 25 by decius

Comment #261528 by Steve Zara


I do wish people would use the term "singularity" with more care. Singularities are flaws in our models of reality.


Except, of course, for triune singularities.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:15:00 UTC | #248266

apoc's Avatar Comment 26 by apoc

I believe that our universe is made of multiple bounces.

I imagine that black holes keep on feeding and moving through space. Then, it happens to find another black hole, fusing and growing stronger, also keeping on moving.

This could happen again, and again, until the energy density is uncontainable and then exploding, sending matter in all directions.

Meanwhile, as this happened in a sector of the universe, other black holes scattered throughout the universe could create the same phenomenon in another sector.

This way, the universe is not expanding. When you look at the big picture, it is moving matter back and forth. We just notice the expansion because we're part of such an explosion and thus we're too small, or technologically unable, to perceive or observe other explosions.

But, still, where did all this matter came from? How we came to be? How did it all begin?

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:20:00 UTC | #248270

ggab7768's Avatar Comment 27 by ggab7768

Dude!!
gurgle...drool...gurgle...
I love this stuff.
The bounce theories have been around for ages in one form or another.
This is some exciting stuff here.
We is learnin'.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:29:00 UTC | #248273

Oystein Elgaroy's Avatar Comment 28 by Oystein Elgaroy

This is interesting, but I think it is worth to bear in mind that this is just one possible scenario within a framework for quantum gravity which is every bit as lacking in empirical evidence as string theory. Any theory of quantum gravity would have to get rid of the singularities in classical general relativity to be counted as successful.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:34:00 UTC | #248274

Sciros's Avatar Comment 29 by Sciros

But, still, where did all this matter came from? How we came to be? How did it all begin?
Whoa the English got worse, too!

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:48:00 UTC | #248280

owen375's Avatar Comment 30 by owen375

So ... the universe is rebooting.

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:14:00 UTC | #248290