millbank Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 New Theory A joint UK-US team has put forward an alternative theory of cosmic evolution. It proposes that the Universe undergoes cycles of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches", meaning our Universe is merely a "child of the previous one". It challenges the conventional view of the cosmos, which observations show to be 12-14 billion years old. The new ideas, reported in the journal Science, may explain why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, the researchers say. "At present the conventional view is that all of space, time, matter and energy began at a single point, which then expanded and cooled, leaving the Universe as it is today," said Professor Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, New Jersey. "However, this new theory suggests that there's a continuous cycle of universes, with each a repeat of the last, but not an exact replica. "It can be thought of as a child of the previous universe." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 New Theory A joint UK-US team has put forward an alternative theory of cosmic evolution. It proposes that the Universe undergoes cycles of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches", meaning our Universe is merely a "child of the previous one". It challenges the conventional view of the cosmos, which observations show to be 12-14 billion years old. The new ideas, reported in the journal Science, may explain why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, the researchers say. "At present the conventional view is that all of space, time, matter and energy began at a single point, which then expanded and cooled, leaving the Universe as it is today," said Professor Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, New Jersey. "However, this new theory suggests that there's a continuous cycle of universes, with each a repeat of the last, but not an exact replica. "It can be thought of as a child of the previous universe." 687149[/snapback] Sounds plausible to me. Nerd invasion alert in 5...4...3...2...1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I thought this was a thread about Anna Nicole Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChevyVanMiller Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Why don't you ask Ralph? His ears are still ringing from the Big Bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 This does not seem to be a new theory and seems to be an extension of super-string theory. A big crunch is not a new idea either. I am guessing what is new is their take on the cosmological constant and why it is so small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 New Theory A joint UK-US team has put forward an alternative theory of cosmic evolution. It proposes that the Universe undergoes cycles of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches", meaning our Universe is merely a "child of the previous one". It challenges the conventional view of the cosmos, which observations show to be 12-14 billion years old. The new ideas, reported in the journal Science, may explain why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, the researchers say. "At present the conventional view is that all of space, time, matter and energy began at a single point, which then expanded and cooled, leaving the Universe as it is today," said Professor Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, New Jersey. "However, this new theory suggests that there's a continuous cycle of universes, with each a repeat of the last, but not an exact replica. "It can be thought of as a child of the previous universe." 687149[/snapback] That's not that new, and it doesn't make the Big Bang theory obsolete. All they're really conjecturing is whether or not the universe is finite or infinite - i.e. a closed or open multi-dimensional curve. They're also dusting off the old theory that the universe is nothing more than a quantum vacuum fluctuation with zero net energy. Overall, though...there's nothing new in that link... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 if it's expanding (like anna nicole smith did) what is it expanding...into? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 This does not seem to be a new theory and seems to be an extension of super-string theory. A big crunch is not a new idea either. I am guessing what is new is their take on the cosmological constant and why it is so small. 687171[/snapback] If I remember correctly from The Elegant Universe, didn't they say that the big bang was caused by parallel universes touching? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 New Theory A joint UK-US team has put forward an alternative theory of cosmic evolution. It proposes that the Universe undergoes cycles of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches", meaning our Universe is merely a "child of the previous one". It challenges the conventional view of the cosmos, which observations show to be 12-14 billion years old. The new ideas, reported in the journal Science, may explain why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, the researchers say. "At present the conventional view is that all of space, time, matter and energy began at a single point, which then expanded and cooled, leaving the Universe as it is today," said Professor Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, New Jersey. "However, this new theory suggests that there's a continuous cycle of universes, with each a repeat of the last, but not an exact replica. "It can be thought of as a child of the previous universe." 687149[/snapback] as said before, nothing new to see here. and it wouldnt make the big bang obsolete, because something had to set off the expansion of the universe from a point of singularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 as said before, nothing new to see here. and it wouldnt make the big bang obsolete, because something had to set off the expansion of the universe from a point of singularity.687191[/snapback] What was the point of singularity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Nerd invasion alert in 5...4...3...2...1 687151[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 What was the point of singularity? 687194[/snapback] That would be the singularity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puhonix Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 That would be the singularity. 687233[/snapback] everything, from nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopsGuy Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I once wrote a paper on the Theory of Everything. The day it was due, my physics professor asked where it was. I said, 'Well last night I was measuring its velocity. I measured it with such precision, it literally could be anywhere in the universe." Bah dum dah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 No love for Creationism?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 No love for Creationism?? 687263[/snapback] Intelligent Design? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Intelligent Design? 687265[/snapback] Yeppers.....I believe in evolution to the degree that I feel it's factual, but I attribute evolution to God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puhonix Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Yeppers.....I believe in evolution to the degree that I feel it's factual, but I attribute evolution to God. 687268[/snapback] Amen! oh, wait, is that ironic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Intelligent Design? 687265[/snapback] It's obvious, based on the fact of where our planet is located in relation to the sun that an intelligent being "placed" us here as to not let us freeze or scald, as would have been the case had we been "placed" on a different planet. This sh-- is so stupid it hurts my brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 It's obvious, based on the fact of where our planet is located in relation to the sun that an intelligent being "placed" us here as to not let us freeze or scald, as would have been the case had we been "placed" on a different planet. This sh-- is so stupid it hurts my brain. 687270[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts