Starship Asterisk*

Who knows, there may be remains of black holes in the ongoing expansion that date from the prior contraction phase and passed intact through the bottleneck of the bounce,"

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Physi ... g_999.html

Red dwarf star can age for more billions of years then the age of the univers is. So, can we also find red dwarf star that are vestiges of the univers before? If that idea is true, is it possible to find those very old age red dwarf. Or has some been already found?

Doum wrote:Who knows, there may be remains of black holes in the ongoing expansion that date from the prior contraction phase and passed intact through the bottleneck of the bounce,"

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Physi ... g_999.html

Red dwarf star can age for more billions of years then the age of the univers is. So, can we also find red dwarf star that are vestiges of the univers before? If that idea is true, is it possible to find those very old age red dwarf. Or has some been already found?

The rather well observed increase in the expansion rate of the Universe argues against a cyclical bounce model. Or do we just happen to be in the final iteration of these previous cycles, one that won't repeat?

Bouncing cosmology inspired by regular black holes - J. C. S. Neves

• General Relativity and Gravitation (online 27 Nov 2017) DOI: 10.1007/s10714-017-2288-6
  arXiv.org > gr-qc > arXiv:1607.08610 > 28 Jul 2016 (v1), 29 Aug 2017 (v3)

I'm so, so looking forward to new, careful measurements of distant galaxies, galactic lensing etcetera, to learn more about the rate of the expansion of the Universe. If a previous universe has left traces in our own vast cosmos, we can hope that new, careful studies will reveal some blips.

Ann

Yes, but we may not find out until “universal fugacity” wins and we all get ripped – in the end.
Thank God. That would be mind-blowing.

The first sentence from the SpaceDaily article reporting this caught my attention:

Although for five decades, the Big Bang theory has been the best known and most accepted explanation for the beginning and evolution of the Universe, it is hardly a consensus among scientists.

The Big Bang isn't consensus? That doesn't sound right.

BDanielMayfield wrote:The first sentence from the SpaceDaily article reporting this caught my attention:

Although for five decades, the Big Bang theory has been the best known and most accepted explanation for the beginning and evolution of the Universe, it is hardly a consensus among scientists.

The Big Bang isn't consensus? That doesn't sound right.

It sure doesn't. A small number of scientists who support other ideas doesn't mean there isn't a consensus. And it isn't even clear what they mean when they say "Big Bang", since that term really encompasses several different theories, each with different supporters (LCDM being the most widely accepted).

Chris Peterson wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:The first sentence from the SpaceDaily article reporting this caught my attention:

Although for five decades, the Big Bang theory has been the best known and most accepted explanation for the beginning and evolution of the Universe, it is hardly a consensus among scientists.

The Big Bang isn't consensus? That doesn't sound right.

It sure doesn't. A small number of scientists who support other ideas doesn't mean there isn't a consensus. And it isn't even clear what they mean when they say "Big Bang", since that term really encompasses several different theories, each with different supporters (LCDM being the most widely accepted).

A text on cosmology that starts off by saying that the Big Bang isn't a consensus among scientists isn't likely to make me take it very seriously. And the next sentence in the text from Space Daily doesn't make me like this text a whole lot better:

SpaceDaily wrote:
Brazilian physicist Juliano Cesar Silva Neves part of a group of researchers who dare to imagine a different origin.

They dare to imagine a different origin. That's so brave.

Or not. There are a lot of things you might imagine, especially the kind of things that are popular in popular culture, such as the idea that there might be spaceships that can make the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.

The idea that we might live in a "bouncing universe", where there might be remnants of a previous universe in the Universe that we live in today, is of course not inherently a silly one, unlike the concept of making the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs. It is, nevertheless, a suggestion that might endear you to a lot of people, because the idea that we live in a bouncing universe is one that is likely to be quite popular. It is similar to the idea of reincarnation, which is also a popular concept. Is it brave to put forth a hypothesis that many people are likely to embrace, so that it will make you popular? Because you have made people's "inner cosmoses" seem cosier than they did before?

Of course, it isn't wrong to test ideas. Not that the idea of the bouncing universe hasn't been put forward before.

What we need from a scientific point of view is a way to actually test the bouncing universe hypothesis.

How do you test the hypothesis of a Big Bang that did not start with a singularity?

"By looking for traces of the events in a contraction phase that may have remained in the ongoing expansion phase. What traces? The candidates include remnants of black holes from a previous phase of universal contraction that may have survived the bounce," Neves said.

So how do you tell the difference between black holes that are normal products of processes in the current Universe and black holes that are remnants of a previous cosmos?

Ann

Ann wrote:So how do you tell the difference between black holes that are normal products of processes in the current Universe and black holes that are remnants of a previous cosmos?

That's a very good question. A black hole is similar in many ways to a subatomic particle: a very simple thing which is fully defined by a very small number of properties. That would seem to make it a rather poor choice for that purpose. Something complex, like an ancient star, would be better. Of course, who's to say that even in a bouncing universe model anything larger than a subatomic particle (if that) would survive into the next iteration?

In our current iteration of the Universe, media outlets are fine-tuning the process of acquiring viewership by verging into plausible fantasies. Too outrageous, and they lose credibility. Too mundane, and nobody reads it. I'd hate to be a writer.

Like the mental image of a black hole diminishing matter into , the idea of a BIG BANG could be thought in completely the opposite way – the little crush.

Is there any way to know?

I think that the Big Bang is the origin of the present visible Universe.
But in the Big Bang there was no singularity over a point of
infinite density.
The matter, time and space existed before the Big Bang, forever...

saturno2 wrote:I think that the Big Bang is the origin of the present visible Universe.
But in the Big Bang there was no singularity over a point of
infinite density.
The matter, time and space existed before the Big Bang, forever...

On what basis do you make that assumption?

??????? wrote:

saturno2 wrote:I think that the Big Bang is the origin of the present visible Universe.
But in the Big Bang there was no singularity over a point of
infinite density.
The matter, time and space existed before the Big Bang, forever...

On what basis do you make that assumption?

1.- The propiertes of matter are finite, there is no infinite density
2.- All visible and dark matter can not be condensed into a point
smaller than an atom. It is physically impossible.
3.-You cant not create matter and energy from a point as if it were
a " cosmic magic".
There are more arguments
But... What do you think about the singularity in the Big Bang?

saturno2 wrote:

??????? wrote:

saturno2 wrote:I think that the Big Bang is the origin of the present visible Universe.
But in the Big Bang there was no singularity over a point of
infinite density.
The matter, time and space existed before the Big Bang, forever...

On what basis do you make that assumption?

1.- The propiertes of matter are finite, there is no infinite density
2.- All visible and dark matter can not be condensed into a point
smaller than an atom. It is physically impossible.
3.-You cant not create matter and energy from a point as if it were
a " cosmic magic".
There are more arguments
But... What do you think about the singularity in the Big Bang?

1. We don't know that. Just because something is not intuitive does not mean it is false.
2. Same response as 1. Keep in mind that there is no reason to think any matter existed at the beginning. Matter and energy are equivalent. We're talking about a point of energy with infinite energy density. (It is also possible that this starting source was small but of finite size.) And we certainly have examples of matter existing as smaller bodies than atoms- that includes all subatomic particles!
3. Same response as 1.

saturno2 wrote:

??????? wrote:

saturno2 wrote:I think that the Big Bang is the origin of the present visible Universe.
But in the Big Bang there was no singularity over a point of
infinite density.
The matter, time and space existed before the Big Bang, forever...

On what basis do you make that assumption?

1.- The propiertes of matter are finite, there is no infinite density
2.- All visible and dark matter can not be condensed into a point
smaller than an atom. It is physically impossible.
3.-You cant not create matter and energy from a point as if it were
a " cosmic magic".
There are more arguments
But... What do you think about the singularity in the Big Bang?

I apologize, Saturno, my question was poorly phrased .. I meant, "On what basis do you make the assumption that matter, time and space existed before the Big Bang, forever ..." Your assumption is dependent on the assumption that Big Bang is true .. it may be consensus .. but that does not make it proven.

Chris Peterson wrote: 1. We don't know that. Just because something is not intuitive does not mean it is false.

Interesting intuitive guy .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

Some of his formulas are only recently, after 100 years, being put to use, to examine Black Holes for instance. He often said he could not understand some of his formulas, but new they were true, and were proven to be true, sometimes by himself, sometimes by others. He also said he saw some of his formulas in dreams, written on scrolls. His story, 'The man who knew infinity' is a great DVD.

During his short life, Ramanujan independently compiled nearly 3,900 results (mostly identities and equations).[2] Many were completely novel; his original and highly unconventional results, such as the Ramanujan prime, the Ramanujan theta function, partition formulae, and mock theta functions, have opened entire new areas of work and inspired a vast amount of further research.[3] Nearly all his claims have now been proven correct.[4]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXGm9Vlfx4w

??????? wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: 1. We don't know that. Just because something is not intuitive does not mean it is false.

Interesting intuitive guy .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

Some of his formulas are only recently, after 100 years, being put to use, to examine Black Holes for instance. He often said he could not understand some of his formulas, but new they were true, and were proven to be true, sometimes by himself, sometimes by others. He also said he saw some of his formulas in dreams, written on scrolls. His story, 'The man who knew infinity' is a great DVD.

During his short life, Ramanujan independently compiled nearly 3,900 results (mostly identities and equations).[2] Many were completely novel; his original and highly unconventional results, such as the Ramanujan prime, the Ramanujan theta function, partition formulae, and mock theta functions, have opened entire new areas of work and inspired a vast amount of further research.[3] Nearly all his claims have now been proven correct.[4]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXGm9Vlfx4w

Not sure of your point. I did not say intuition isn't useful. What I said is that something being non-intuitive isn't an argument for it being false. Much of our core understanding of the Universe goes against intuition. (And in any case, mathematics is not remotely science.)

Thinking of what was going on prior to the Big Bang bounces my brain around. Perhaps it turned the universe inside out after the bounce. But could matter get flip-flopped during the bounce? I suspect something’s “de-matter” with that scenario.

Chris Peterson wrote:

??????? wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: 1. We don't know that. Just because something is not intuitive does not mean it is false.

Interesting intuitive guy .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

Some of his formulas are only recently, after 100 years, being put to use, to examine Black Holes for instance. He often said he could not understand some of his formulas, but new they were true, and were proven to be true, sometimes by himself, sometimes by others. He also said he saw some of his formulas in dreams, written on scrolls. His story, 'The man who knew infinity' is a great DVD.

During his short life, Ramanujan independently compiled nearly 3,900 results (mostly identities and equations).[2] Many were completely novel; his original and highly unconventional results, such as the Ramanujan prime, the Ramanujan theta function, partition formulae, and mock theta functions, have opened entire new areas of work and inspired a vast amount of further research.[3] Nearly all his claims have now been proven correct.[4]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXGm9Vlfx4w

Not sure of your point. I did not say intuition isn't useful. What I said is that something being non-intuitive isn't an argument for it being false. Much of our core understanding of the Universe goes against intuition. (And in any case, mathematics is not remotely science.)

It seems to me that ??????? was not making a point .. just including interesting subject matter relevant to intuition. Regarding your 'mathematics is not remotely science' please consider these easily confirmed statements:
"The mathematical sciences are a group of areas of study that includes, in addition to mathematics, those academic disciplines that are primarily mathematical in nature but may not be universally considered subfields of mathematics proper." Also: "Mathematics is certainly a science in the broad sense of "systematic and formulated knowledge", but most people use "science" to refer only to the natural sciences."

Pointless wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:(And in any case, mathematics is not remotely science.)

Regarding your 'mathematics is not remotely science' please consider these easily confirmed statements:
"The mathematical sciences are a group of areas of study that includes, in addition to mathematics, those academic disciplines that are primarily mathematical in nature but may not be universally considered subfields of mathematics proper." Also: "Mathematics is certainly a science in the broad sense of "systematic and formulated knowledge", but most people use "science" to refer only to the natural sciences."

I don't know what "confirmed statements" are, but I consider it absurd to call mathematics a science. It has absolutely nothing in common with science. Mathematics describes systems for logically manipulating symbols. It is not connected with reality or with the behavior of nature, and does not employ any component of scientific methodology.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Pointless wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:(And in any case, mathematics is not remotely science.)

Regarding your 'mathematics is not remotely science' please consider these easily confirmed statements:
"The mathematical sciences are a group of areas of study that includes, in addition to mathematics, those academic disciplines that are primarily mathematical in nature but may not be universally considered subfields of mathematics proper." Also: "Mathematics is certainly a science in the broad sense of "systematic and formulated knowledge", but most people use "science" to refer only to the natural sciences."

I don't know what "confirmed statements" are, but I consider it absurd to call mathematics a science. It has absolutely nothing in common with science. Mathematics describes systems for logically manipulating symbols. It is not connected with reality or with the behavior of nature, and does not employ any component of scientific methodology.

As a casual visitor here I find this discussion fascinating .. I've always wondered what science really is.

From Miriam Webster: Definition of science

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology
b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art
5 capitalized : christian science