Monday, November 22, 2010

Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang

The cosmic microwave background as seen by WMAPCircular patterns within the cosmic microwave background suggest that space and time did not come into being at the Big Bang but that our universe in fact continually cycles through a series of "aeons". That is the sensational claim being made by University of Oxford theoretical physicist Roger Penrose, who says that data collected by NASA's WMAP satellite support his idea of "conformal cyclic cosmology". This claim is bound to prove controversial, however, because it opposes the widely accepted inflationary model of cosmology.

According to inflationary theory, the universe started from a point of infinite density known as the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago, expanded extremely rapidly for a fraction of a second and has continued to expand much more slowly ever since, during which time stars, planets and ultimately humans have emerged. That expansion is now believed to be accelerating and is expected to result in a cold, uniform, featureless universe.

Penrose, however, takes issue with the inflationary picture and in particular believes it cannot account for the very low entropy state in which the universe was believed to have been born – an extremely high degree of order that made complex matter possible. He does not believe that space and time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang but that the Big Bang was in fact just one in a series of many, with each big bang marking the start of a new "aeon" in the history of the universe.

Central to Penrose's theory is the idea that in the very distant future the universe will in one sense become very similar to how it was at the Big Bang. He says that at these points the shape, or geometry, of the universe was and will be very smooth, in contrast to its current very jagged form. This continuity of shape, he maintains, will allow a transition from the end of the current aeon, when the universe will have expanded to become infinitely large, to the start of the next, when it once again becomes infinitesimally small and explodes outwards from the next big bang. Crucially, he says, the entropy at this transition stage will be extremely low, because black holes, which destroy all information that they suck in, evaporate as the universe expands and in so doing remove entropy from the universe.

Penrose now claims to have found evidence for this theory in the cosmic microwave background, the all-pervasive microwave radiation that was believed to have been created when the universe was just 300,000 years old and which tells us what conditions were like at that time. The evidence was obtained by Vahe Gurzadyan of the Yerevan Physics Institute in Armenia, who analysed seven years' worth of microwave data from WMAP, as well as data from the BOOMERanG balloon experiment in Antarctica. Penrose and Gurzadyan say they have clearly identified concentric circles within the data – regions in the microwave sky in which the range of the radiation's temperature is markedly smaller than elsewhere. ...

via Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang -


oliver stieber said...

didn't Penrose get just a little bit told off for some of his theories.

His data isn't too bad, his application is a bit off the mark.

jim henson said...

Lerner says the CMB aligns with our local supercluster group, which our galaxy is a part of. The Lorentz force might be responsible for the concentric circles in the CMB, and represent the past, possibly a white hole. This wrecks havoc on the big-bang theory, and supports an EM Plasma Universe

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said...

Radhasoami Faith View of Modus Operandi of Creation of Universe

Yes,Universe existed before Big Bang please.

Stephen Hawking writes in The Grand Design, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.” Hawking said the Big Bang was merely the consequence of the law of gravity. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking had suggested that the idea of God or a divine being was not necessarily incompatible with a scientific understanding of the Universe.

Although Hawking is very close to Truth yet he is not perfect in his views while discarding the role of divine being. I consider the role of eternal gravity uppermost but I strongly differ with Hawking on the role of divine being. I consider Divine Ordainment is the cause of Creation of Universe.

Now I give Radhasoami Faith view of Creation Theory. In Sar Bachan (Poetry) composed by His Holiness Soamiji Maharaj the August Founder of Radhasoami Faith the details of creation and dissolution has been described very scientifically. It is written in Jeth Mahina (name of Hindi moth) in this Holy Book: Only He Himself (Supreme Father)and none else was there. There issued forth a great current of spirituality, love and grace (In scientific terminology we may call this current as gravitational wave). This is called His Mauj (Divine Ordainment). This was the first manifestation of Supreme Being. This Divine Ordainment brought into being three regions, viz., Agam, Alakh, and Satnam of eternal bliss. Then a current emerged with a powerful sound (this was the first Big Bang). It brought forth the creation of seven Surats or currents of various shades and colours (in scientific terminology we may call it electromagnetic waves). Here the true Jaman or coagulant was given (in scientific terminology this coagulant may be called as weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force). Surats, among themselves, brought the creation into being.

These currents descended down further and brought the whole universe/multi verse into being i.e. black holes, galaxies etc. were born.
I would like to add further that sound energy and gravitational force current are non polar entity and electromagnetic force is bi-polar. Hence spiritual polarization, if occurred, is occurred in the region of Sat Lok and region below to it only.

Ann said...

Hold on! How can one say, "Hawking is very close to Truth," without defining what "truth" is. But, of course, "he is not perfect in his views," who is?

What if I define truth to what Hawking says, instead of someone else?

But, of course, I wouldn't do that, because I wouldn't let any one person manipulate my thinking. It would have to be from a whole body of investigations, not one, however noteworthy, person. (Please, to rely on one person for anything so important as to manipulate your faith or belief, it's far too close, for example, to what people in Mussolini's Italy did; or the general U.S. population did concerning Pres. Bush's assertions after 9-11, when he really could prove nothing. Now, we're stuck in an era of "endless wars.") After all, even Einstein's notions had to be verified with further investigations before they were more or less accepted. Yet, even today Einstein's work is still debated and checked. Anyway, who is to say that "truth" is a constant universal? Maybe it isn't.

jim henson said...

If the fine-structure constant spatially varies, then there can't be a universal truth constant, because all constants will vary in strength the most along this dipole axis that roughly aligns with the dark flow. Gravity, light speed, EM forces, all vary throughout the universe at greater distances, according to telescopic measurements by the John Webb team.