The Big Bounce Theory

+1 by spankerchief , Sounds like a theory I BS'ed about a few years back. I called it the heartbeat of God.

Please, enlighten we.

Pretty much the same thing Ashtekar did through crunching numbers I just guessed at.

I figure if timespace is expanding, then it must be part of a cycle. (Seeing as even in an infinite universe there has to be, to avoid entropy.) I don't know how much mass it takes to completely fill all the space between say, a carbon atom and it's orbiting protons with the actual particles of protons, neutrons and electrons of other atoms, but it might very well be a universe worth. Either way, at the collapse at one end of the cycle, the component atoms would have to reach such a density that they must either completely surrender their nuclear bonds and become something REALLY STRANGE or start throwing atoms back out against the inflow of a collapsing universe. Maybe the pressure of such a weight on this universe would get to the point where it starts to create it's own inverted timespace, and ejects it's mass into that. I figure either way it's a pulse.

But hey, what the meep do I know?

You should publish your theory of orbiting protons and avoidable entropy.

Like I said, I was bs'ing. I looked it up and turns out protons and neutrons make up the nucleus of an atom. But by entropy, I meant the eventual death of the universe.

Theories like this are the result of really smart people who have a problem with the idea that stuff can arise from the absence of stuff, and the idea that time cannot have a beginning or an end. These physicist try to force the evolution of the universe into a box that makes sense to them intuitively. This is bound to fail because their intuition is guided by counter-intuitive restrictions, such as linear, infinite time, that they came to grips with as children because they are philisophically easier questions to deal with than their alternatives, like non-causal origins.

It's unfortunate that this kind of inelastic, linear thought is so prevalent among theorists. These guys have all these confirmed phenomena to use as tools, like the Casimir effect, that very obviously imply enlightening things about the life of the universe, but they ignore them becuse they don't want to leave their intellectual comfort zones.

I thought most physicists were in agreement that the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate and would never stop. Blamed it on mysterious dark stuff that you can't see but makes up 95% of the universe.

I'd hate to think that this was the universe's one and only go.

Why can't all these really smart people comprehend that there is a distinct possibility that the universe was always here? Our knowledge of it may be constantly expanding but that doesn't mean that it is. We have no definitive evidence to prove how our own planet came to be, and yet we queue up to solve the mystery of the birth of the universe by throwing guesses at an infinite wall? This seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse, to me.

When one thinks about the size and scale of our own galaxy compared to our collective knowledge of it (almost zero) - and then looks at the size of our galaxy on an area the scale of perhaps the closest 10 galaxies to us - only to then admit that this entire area of space, 10 galaxies worth, is smaller than a single grain of sand dropped into the ocean when compared to the universe; one must at least have the intelligence to admit that we know nothing about the universe on any scale that could possibly meeping matter... and to imagine that we do is a complete ego meep.

Now, to sit around and bullmeep about what could be can be fun. It's not really any different than two pot-heads bullmeepting about time travel or other dimensions... but at least the pot heads are just bullmeepting. Intellectuals that propose theories about the universe as a whole and are serious about it, are just stroking their own egos. Their theories have no more basis in reality than the discussion the pot-heads are having and probably deserve just as much attention.

Can understand all the secrets...just need more acid...

Actually, 'tak, to wax philosophiic about the origin of the universe is an incredibly useful method. A large portion of particle physicists and cosmologists are in their fields ultimately to study the mythical theory of everything. The most intuitive way of going about that is to think about the origin of the universe. If you can correctly guess the way the universe has evolved from it's ultimate beginning to its present state, you have drastically reduced the number of possible forms of the fundamental laws of the universe. So, basically, to determine the initial conditions of the universe is a shortcut to determining the fundamental laws of the universe, which is a shortcut to discover everything else that is of scientific interest ever. The alternative is to painstakingly work bckwards, which is also effective but will probably take much, much longer and is much, much less interesting to the scientist who is ultimately interested in the fundamental laws.

This might seem like a lofty goal, given your perception of our current state of knowledge, but it's not. We actually have a significant body of knowledge about the general principals that apply to most things. Take Thermodynamics, for example. That field is pretty much wrapped up, and there are almost zero processes in this universe that don't involve the spontaneous flow of heat. Math, too. We have a magnificently capable sytem of logic which is capable of handling most anything we can throw at it, in any number of dimentions, constrained by any wacky kind of time imaginable. Now, there is a vast amount of meep we don't know, but the majority of that doesn't apply very widely. So no, this is very different than a couple of potheads sitting around and bullmeepting.

This isn't psychology we're talking about, here.

If you can correctly guess the way the universe has evolved from it's ultimate beginning to its present state, you have drastically reduced the number of possible forms of the fundamental laws of the universe.

How does one prove which guess is correct when the human race knows pretty much nothing about the universe as a whole?

So, basically, to determine the initial conditions of the universe is a shortcut to determining the fundamental laws of the universe, which is a shortcut to discover everything else that is of scientific interest ever.

I believe that the human race is in it's infancy and is incapable of understanding everything about everything.

We actually have a significant body of knowledge about the general principals that apply to most things.

If every book ever written by mankind was completely full of nothing but facts about the universe, it would still only be a grain of sand in an ocean of knowledge yet to be discovered about the universe.

Now, there is a vast amount of meep we don't know, but the majority of that doesn't apply very widely.

How can you possible make this statement with a straight face?

So no, this is very different than a couple of potheads sitting around and bullmeepting.

This isn't psychology we're talking about, here.

I agree, we're talking about knowledge gathered by mankind on an infinite universe. If you truly believe in infinity then you must admit that man is incapable of understanding everything about something they can never completely explore and study.

I don't argue the fact that there are certain laws that govern things that man has studied. I argue that man hasn't even begun to learn about the universe as a whole and there are an unknown number of laws that have yet to be discovered that could have an effect on everything man thinks he knows about the universe.

To take this tiny bit of knowledge and attempt to use it to define something that we haven't even begun to explore just seems a bit shallow and premature to me. It's like trying to mix and present all of the colors of the spectrum with only a black crayon and a white crayon.

It's like trying to mix and present all of the colors of the spectrum with only a black crayon and a white crayon.

It's more like trying to dig a hole with your meep or trying to win a Nobel Prize in clown makeup application.

^ Winning a Nobel Prize in clown makeup is fairly easy, but white is absence of color, and black is all colors combined. Domino's changed their recipe. They agreed to make an inedible product less inedible.

Really, its like 'drinkability', but with colors, not beer.

I believe that the human race is in it's infancy and is incapable of understanding everything about everything.

You can believe whatever you want about whatever you want. You have that right as a nonscientist. They tell me it feels very nice, too.

The fact is, though, is that the universe probably isn't infinite. Well, not it the way you're thinking, anyway. The stuff that I assume you consider 'the universe' is most probably quite finite. We know this because, if it wasn't, the stuff we can see wouldn't be anything like it is. The reasons are complicated and mathy, so you should just take may word for it; or you could pony up the cash and the time and actually educate yourself, either way.

Also, that part of the universe also has a very limited amount of variation on the fundamental levels. Almost none, probably. Think of it this way: The entire universe is unique at every point. Unless you consider what it's all made of. Then it's mostly just 64 or so different kinds of atoms. Not so unique anymore. Take it further: consider what those 64 kinds of atoms are made of. Now you're down to a little more than a couple dozen particles, most of which are just mirror-images of each other. So there's really only 12 or so, maybe. All of the sudden, the only difference between one point in space and another is the type or absence of particulate at that point and its position with respect to all the other identical or very similar points out there. So, there's not really that much to figure out. All we need to know is the 'structure' of every type of fundamental particle (there may be only one, there may be about a dozen, but no more than that), and either the structure of spacetime, or the rules according to which those particles interact. Everything else can be inferred. The trick is sifting through the noise that happens (the universe) when x types of particles with y energy interact with n other particles in d dimensions. That's alot of noise.

So the apparent 'infinite complexity' of the universe is an illusion. Look up the double pendulum. We percieve the motion of a double pendulum as random, but it's actually deterministic and predictable. Chaos theory.

So, what I'm trying to say here is that the knowledge we have looks insignificant next to the infinite system we're in, but that's only because the system isn't as infinite as it seems. Infinity is a philisophically simple idea compared to its alternatives, which accounts for your misperception, and brings me all the way back to my original point.

You have that right as a nonscientist

And there it goes, right down the cranberry chute. Isn't it great to know everything and have all the answers?

And really, how much of your mouth-craps are your own thought, and how much is the text book you have next to your computer? I have seen many folks on thisy here website, and you, sir, are the thickest. You win the troll award.

Infinity is a philisophically simple idea compared to its alternatives, which accounts for your misperception...

Your perceptions hold no more scientific weight than do mine.

...and you're clown makeup scares little children.

Really, le 'tak, it comes down to this. I could, with my expensive official-scientist-badge-wearing-brain, address your points, one by one, to the disgust of all. HOWEVER, sciencey thinkin' to teh rescue once again.

There are only 26 letters in the English alphabet. There could be a couple more coming soon, if science has its way, but no more than 32 max. (I didn't believe in prescriptive hermeneutics until I lost my first meep virginity during a Jaws drive-in!) So while there may seem to be an infinite number of letters that could be typed to totally e-destroy your points, really, there are only 26. The rest is all details concerning time and place. Of those 26 letters, you'll note, assuming you shove your tiny mind close enough to the screen to properly see, that there are only 3 or 4 basic shapes composing those letters. (Maybe just one shape if the guys over in Topological Divinities pick up the Reduction ad Absurdum torch, but anyhoo.) So you see we can actually reduce all possible meaningful English shapes to a single shape, which bears compacted within it all possible English meanings, certainly several of which you may construe as sounding sufficiently intellectual that you might assume you have been defeated utterly. I now offer this shape, and its concomitant theoretical loss, to your absurdly-predictable, pet-like mind...

P

I refute thee thusly, and triumphantly relax amidst my diploma.

*purrs

Well meepit. I <3 science, and I'm not ashamed of my GED.

OH. For a second there, I thought this was about physics, not me. How stupid of me. I thought W was simply expressing how his personal understanding conflicted with my opinion, and, projecting my character onto others a people are wont to do, I assumed he would appreciate an illumination of the facts.

But since this was about ME, let me rewind and treat it as such:

'tak: Why can't all these really smart people comprehend that there is a distinct possibility that the universe was always here?

Stop being such a presumptuous loudmouth. When we're talking about the quickest way to kill a stupid woodland mammal with very few natural defenses, I'll defer to you. This is when you defer to me.

ghostie: Isn't it great to know everything and have all the answers?

I didn't imply that I know everything, I implied that when I don't know something, I choose to withhold belief. This makes me a good scientist, and prevents me from misreading others and looking like an meep.

diva: posturing

Congratulations. You're good at the internet. Start a blog.

Glad you asked. I love pie. Usually apple pie but there are times when only strawberry/rhubarb will do.

This is when you defer to me.

oh my lol.

prevents me from ... looking like an meep.

hardly.

This is when you defer to me.

Admit it -- your entire use of LinkSwarm up to now has been in preparation for typing this sentence.

And really, how much of your mouth-craps are your own thought, and how much is the text book you have next to your computer? I have seen many folks on thisy here website, and you, sir, are the thickest. You win the troll award.

I have a big grazzly manboner now that Ghostie is back.

How does it feel to be all candy coating and no chocolate?

Bloody meep, can you possibly be more predictable?

I thought W was simply expressing how his personal understanding conflicted with my opinion, and, projecting my character onto others a people are wont to do, I assumed he would appreciate an illumination of the facts.

English much, Mr. Scientist-super-thinker-person? It must be hard to write term papers in gibberish, huh?

This makes me a good scientist,

how is it that you qualify for this title?

^ I'm a contributing member of a large-scale, international project that is important and relavent to the world-wide scientific communtity, and proud of it ^_^ To preempt the inevitable comment, my contributions are in the capacity of a physicist, not a labororer or paper-pusher or some such. It's the Daya Bay neutrino detector(s). Look it up, it's cool beans. I've done some individual research on geomagnetism and atomic decay, too, but those aren't projects you could really look up (yet).

English much

Seriously, you don't know what I said?

To clarify: wat you thot about fisics is rong but i now wat is rite, so i told you wat is rite becuz if i wer you i wuld want to now. i forgat that some peepal somtimes dont want to now things, they just want too be rite. i wuldent hav told you wat is rite if i remberd.

Don't you have some fancy thinkin' to be doing somewhere?

can you tell me how awesome you are again, rp? i feel like i may soon forget.

Go read a comic book.

i see ye olde implication, but i was hoping you'd be a little more direct. i find it odd, really. you never seem to let the opportunity to do so pass.

Linkswarm.com: Where retarded laborers and paper pushers have gone to defer neutrino physics and geomagnetism to people with extremely low self esteem since 1492.

Better to have low self esteem for no reason than high self esteem for no reason. just sayin'.

Either way, does it require you to keep telling linkswarm about how awesome you think you are? Because if it does, kill yourself.