This is interesting to learn how from an ‘almost’ homogeneous space with a very few tiny density perturbations; these big galaxies, stars, planets were made – how these first-ever structures were formed. But it is tough to study that, especially because we can not observe the ‘first-ever stars’ being formed and theoretically too it’s a bit tricky – you need to take care of loads of physics and on paper, it goes all messy. But we have another option – and that is to simulate the universe using numerical computations (we know how it was after inflation, we know how it looks like now, we know the forces that should be influencing the formation of structures in space, so it’s not that tough)!!
Presenting here are few snapshots of a simulation I have been running for the final project of my lab course on Numerical Simulations. This is using a cosmological code called ENZO and the following eight slices are focussing on a single region in space as time flows (from ‘then’ to ‘now’). The three sub-plots on each of these slices show the density, temperature, and velocity of the matter at that point in time. The first slice was made when the universe was very young.. and as you go down the slices, you see a more and more modern version of the universe, the final slice being the universe now.
At the earliest time, the universe was almost homogeneous except a few regions where we had a very tiny bit of inhomogeneity in density that we term as density perturbations. Those overdense regions collapsed due to self-gravity over a period of time and finally, structures were formed – halos, and then galaxies, the stars and then planets – and on one of those structures called Earth, I am sitting today and writing this blog 🙂 Well, ENZO is not a code that ‘I’ wrote, but it is something really cool to work with and the results are worth being shared. I loved it 🙂 I hope you like it too!
This first slice as I said is when the Universe was young, almost 0.5 Gyrs after Big Bang (now it is almost 14 Gyrs). Forget the Density and Velocity sub-plots and focus on the plot in the middle i.e. the temperature plot. You see those two small greenish things on that purple background? Well, these are small perturbations on otherwise homogeneous space. Now, as they have ‘a bit’ higher density and mass, they will have a bit higher gravitational force and hence it will start attracting and accumulating more and more mass from the surrounding!!
And as you go through the next slices (from older times till today), you will see how these structures will grow. The temperature sub-plots (the purple middle plots in each slice) show the situation most clearly – so first concentrate on that!!
This final slice shows a type of mass halo (like a big galaxy cluster) with numerous galaxies inside it! If I could go to higher resolutions, I could even show the galaxies as we see them now. And using supercomputers if this simulation could be run for days and if considerable zooming is done, it is possible to even reach the stars – the first stars that were born!!
Ohh! And you can even look at the density of individual elements at all these times – and as you can see in the following plot, whenever there is a structure being formed we have loads of electrons (the left-most slice) and ionized hydrogen (the slice at right) compared to the surrounding voids. But as at those places we have high density and temperature, neutral hydrogen can not survive there – so in the middle plot we see the neutral hydrogen density to be almost negligible (bluer = lesser density) in the structures compared to the voids:
Never thought before that I would love/want to learn programming and these numerical methods!! 🙂
Mysterium Cosmographicum 
“Bdw, for the detailed physics behind formation of these structures, you can just click !!”
click what?? one gets zoomed in pictures on clicking them.
anyways…..nice and informative post.
Manishjee .. I wanted to give a link to one of my previous blogs, but somehow the link-option does not seem to work. Thank you for pointing that out 🙂 I hope to troubleshoot it soon!
From my resent post – The Truth about the Big Bang. scientist types are awfully fond of talking about the BIG BANG as if such a thing makes enormous sense. Well the thing is it doesn’t make sense. Actually it makes no sense at all. I suspect that there were a whole bunch of Bangs and as such once these blokes in the lab get it sorted we will be referring to the Sequential Outpouring . . .or what about the Pulsating Phased Emissions at the Heart of All Things (possibly just tooo suggestive to leave the children in no doubt that they were not found under a cabbage leaf) or by Crikey here’s one . . .The Relatively Contained Series of Explosions That Were Still Quite Huge Thank You Very Much so Please Don’t Stop The Tour Busses
Dr. Quantum (I like the name :))
Yes I know that Big Bang is still questionable, but of all the theories being proposed, this one, at least for me makes the most sense. The ‘very basic’ idea behind Big Bang is that from a dense hot state, our universe has been expanding, getting less dense and cooling down. And many of the observational data behaves as expected from the theory – on the large scale even now the universe does show a remarkable homogeneity, Hubble’s law does imply an expanding universe, the presence of an exceptionally smooth cosmic microwave background and the abundance of the light elements like hydrogen and helium in the present day universe – both of these behave exactly as suggested by the big bang theory! May be it was not just a big bang but a pulsating universe as many suggests – but the thing is – we are not going in a completely wrong direction here, at least I believe so!!
🙂 bdw, it is nice to get such fresh viewpoints!
Hey Panchi, glad you like the name. Yours is rather nice too. From the long form you sound Indian whereas Panchi sounds like it could be Italian. Anyway the thing is this . . .the pulsating Universe is definitely of interest. But the one which i think is really intriguing is the idea that there was a whole bunch of explosions. Is it possible these all happened at the same time – simultaneously? If this is possible and if that is what really did happen then it would be very hard to explain without some kind of “intelligent design” theory. I must declare myself to be from the Intelligent design school. It seems to me there is a kind of war going on between the reductionists and the intelligent quantum holographic school. In Australia there is a group called Friends of Science in Medicine about whom I have been posting in the negative. Because they are trying to have al natural therapies courses taken out of universities. This kind of fundamentalist science has very close origins to Marxism and Victorian era notions of evolution i.e. Darwinian concepts. The creative tension of opposites is certainly providing much fuel for ideas and creative thinking. I do try to be non-polarized in my thinking but I inevitably get riled up by the squares. I also appreciate that in a complex and healthy evolutionary context we need great variety. And there is a story behind how I came by this name if you are interested. Ciao for now Bella
Hi,
I am a Mathematician, more of a Geometer, and quite fascinated by this whole idea being discussed here. I will take the liberty of coming directly to my point. Could you explain in a little more detail what “…… there was a whole bunch of explosions. Is it possible these all happened at the same time – simultaneously….”. Far as my understanding goes, assuming the concept of “simultaneity” can be described only after a finite time has passed after the event took place. Rather, the whole concept of a space-time comes into being AT the big bang (hope I am not mistaken, could you verify this Payaswini??). So one Big bang or multiple bangs, does it make a difference to the theory of evolution of the universe?
Hey Varun!
If there was a Big Bang, then we can not really talk about the spacetime(?) before that event – the ‘time’ as we call it now, started at the Big Bang! You are right about that! About the ‘bunch of explosions’, I guess Dr Quantum will be able to give a better answer 🙂
The whole question of space-time must be reconciled with not just multi-dimensionality but also hyper dimensionality. Let’s ask ourselves a question about black holes. Where do they go? Where does the energy from a black hole go? In our universe there are many many black holes. Are they feeding back into our universe? Or are they coming out into some other space time? Does one Black Hole explode out into a whole new universe as implied by the event of a singularity. If so the number of universes must be growing at an exponential rate. That’s OK but it’sa good question. According to Nobel Laureate George Smoot in his TED talk here http://youtu.be/c64Aia4XE1Y the universe is actually cellular ie a large CELL and this has now been mapped out apparently.Interestingly according the ancient Vedic or Hindu (?) scripture Srimad Bhagavatam (i think) there is a form of Vishnu who is breathing out multiple Universes “from his nostrils and the pores of his skin”. In other words from the ancient spiritual knowledge there is a life who stands well and truly before, prior to and shall we say above the current academic conception of universe. The compartmentalized legacy of Newtonian scientific knowledge has located itself within “Universities” By definition these establishments are meant to represent Universal knowledge. But you see they don’t. Quantum Theory now tells us that everything is indeed connected. What academic disciplines represent is a narrow perspective of understanding. My own knowledge tells me that each galaxy and solar system is it’s own area or outpouring. Further that there are many of these outpourings across the spectrum of what we would call the Universe. Perhaps there was a central Outpouring or Big Bang but I believe that our understanding of it is somewhat limited. So I suppose you might say that I was “lobbing in a grenade” to challenge the current orthodoxy. Truthfully I do not understand the science of it well in terms of maths. What I do know is that science often gets its pictures of the creation story wrong. Tells us stuff that isn’t true then apologises or more correctly revises its story to fit their new “discovery”. At root I am questioning the authority that so-caled science has to control our worldview based on a whole lot of academic theories and abstract mathematics. Meanwhile the idea of intelligent design is howled down as delusionary. It’s a complex set which I am putting forward here however just because a solution is simple . . .doesn’t mean it’s correct. Just like the drunk guy who dropped his keys and insisted on looking by the lamp post. He didn’t drop them there but that’s where the available light was. We must assume that he did get home eventually assuming he survived. Which leads me to the matter of the Global environment . . .
Dr quantum,
It has been shown that black holes DONOT open up into a whole new universe. The universe( as we know so far ) is a closed system. Also Smooth never meant to say that the Universe IS a cell. Its a metaphor. and can you PLEASE explain how quantum theory tells us everything is connected ? what is connected?
” What I do know is that science often gets its pictures of the creation story wrong. ”
Science is objective. It does not care if the creation story exists or not. Science is a METHOD of doing things. Observations, analysis and interpretation of nature. Please understand that before criticizing science. In science, people come up with testable ideas that are tested rigorously.
If intelligent design can come up with testable hypothesis, scientists would happily apply the scientific method to check the validity of the the hypothesis.
Dear Dr. Quantum,
That still does not answer my question about multiple big bangs. Plus I am not very clear about what you mean by “The whole question of space-time must be reconciled with not just multi-dimensionality but also hyper dimensionality”!!!!! Its highly vague. Far as the question of Black holes you have mentioned above goes, it has already been proved by Hawking that Black Holes emit weak radiations, known as Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation reduces the mass and the energy of the black hole and is therefore also known as black hole evaporation. Because of this, black holes that lose more mass than they gain through other means are expected to shrink and ultimately vanish. (source: wiki) In the light of this, “Black Hole explode out into a whole new universe” is impossible. Also, “Quantum Theory now tells us that everything is indeed connected” is not true, even one bit. There’s and entire branch called the M-Theory that tries to unify the 4 fundamental forces of nature, till date not successful. “It’s a complex set which I am putting forward here however just because a solution is simple”. I don’t see any such idea being put forward in your reply above. Could you kindly elaborate?
Dear Dr. Quantum,
For someone who rejects the authority and validity of science, you are very quick to quote the words of Dr. Smoot – a scientist. Science doesn’t claim to know everything neither does it claim that it is always right. It is a method of observing the universe, collecting information about it, coming up with explanations for the observations and again testing out whether your explanations are correct. All scientific claims come under peer review and extreme scrutiny before being accepted. And even after being accepted, if they are properly disputed at a later date, corrections are readily made. As for Intelligent Design, it is not a scientific theory but a religious idea. It has no evidence and no effort to collect any evidence has been made.
I think that astrophysicists probably represent the more noble end of the scientific spectrum.Perhaps because they have ostensibly less to gain from the corruptions of business so much in evidence in other specializations. The idea that the scientific community is made up a noble body of intelligent people who proceed with their findings in an orderly fashion from one discovery to the next is really not supported by the facts. There are so many examples of this that one scarcely knows where to begin. It seems there is a great divide in this hallucinatory project of being right according to the orthodoxy. Anything that might let the metaphysics genie out of the bottle is easily subject to this effective conspiracy. Just step out of line by a fraction and watch your career go out the window. Professional ostracism and loss of funding are the usual tools of coercion. It takes a very brave soul to go against this kind of brutal machinery. We can spend our entire life happily being supported by cash and peers finding one way that one chemical interacts with another inside a cell, but mention anything that may threaten the orthodoxy of materialism and YOU’RE OUT IN THE COLD. How scientific is that?
I am sorry i am not done yet
Tells us stuff that isn’t true then apologises or more correctly revises its story to fit their new “discovery”.
Science never said that anything is the absolute truth. If you are up for it, you are welcome to go and repeat all the experiments since Galileo and Newton all the way the to Cosmic background radiation experiments and if you find something different, please let the scientists know(they ll have Nobel waiting for you). The whole point of science is to question current understanding of an idea. This process keeps scientists on their toes. that’s how “they roll”.
“because a solution is simple . . .doesn’t mean it’s correct.”
I can understand that this is your main point. Science is not saying that because the solution is simple that it is correct. It has been observed in nature that phenomenon have explanations, sure it takes a bit of time to get to it but there always is an explanation(So far). The explanations to these phenomenon are simple. The idea comes from nature, through many observations it has been established that nature prefers to simplify.
Also what do you mean by simple? Does it mean that a system is more ordered ? Does it mean its more homogeneous? Or do you mean that it is easier to understand?
Dear Mr. Varun Thakre,
While I agree with you on many points, I must point out that Hawking radiation is only a theory which has not been confirmed to be true by any sort of measurement.
I agree. But here are the first signs of the attempt. Though it remains to be confirmed fully, it seems that quite a few scientists are positive about the phenomenon.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5868/1367.abstract
Well perhaps there was a Big Bang. But perhaps there were many. The preposterous notion that weak radiation from a black hole can account for the disappearance and dissipation of all the energy pulled into it is alarmingly and brutally nonsensical. Not only does it defy common sense it just goes to show that scientists have become no better than lawyers. They are demonstrably capable of using their skill in the language of their profession to “prove” that black is white. I am going to predict that any astrophysicist with the requisite mathematical language can debunk the whole idea of Hawking Radiation as an explanation of the disappearance of matter into black holes. They just have to look at what has been put forward and see the lie. I am well and truly sticking my neck out here. Try a SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT. See if you can find three people with the required maths to come up with a workable hypothesis. Hit pick prediction they won’t have any trouble at all. How would I know this in advance . . .since I don’t have the maths and yet claim to know? Hmmm? Try an experiment . . .i dare you.
Hyper-dimesnionality – multiple times and spaces which can intersect. Something which quantum physicists are well advanced with. The problem with introducing time as a an absolute factor limiting creative scenarios is that time indeed is an illusion. You can have as many Bangs as you like and may I just assure you that they do . . .and they did. They are occurring inside every atom as we speak. The Big Bang . . .Oh my Gawd. But it’s a nice neat little phrase to guarantee that those research dollars keep rolling in on schedule. Hey . . .we all need to eat right? So why not invent a Big Bang and just milk it for all it’s worth. No one but fellow “scientists” will ever really understand it so you’re as safe as houses. It fits neatly into the aligned power dynamic of busy angry people who make it their full time job to go about telling everyone else what to do and what to believe. This controlling group of sociopathic narcissists never have been right and they still aren’t. But boy . . .do they ever love BEING RIGHT.
It’s the same story in every department of life. A few giants have the monumentally outside the box ideas that blow apart the old concepts and then the mediocre minds of slavish fashion attempt to ensconce themselves in an endless variety of niches capable of feathering nests and carving out careers. Anyone with an ounce of creativity has to deal with this army of blockheads on a daily basis as they are the only people arrogant enough to think that they could actually control things. Fascists. But admittedly it does solve the problem of certainty. We now have plenty of that. Doesn’t matter if we’re wrong . . .at least we’re certain and as comfortable as we can be under the circumstances. Meanwhile say goodbye to mystery and errr . . .hello world.
Dear Mr Quantum,
I am sorry to see the kind of language you have used. Now that I have seen your blog, I know that you are no physicist, and its completely pointless arguing with an arrogant creationist like you. I was seriously interested in the idea you had put fwd, but as I can see now, its just a pile of crap.
And before trying to dare me, know that each one of my statements has an experimentally observed proof (regarding black holes). There is a lot of evidence that Hawking’s theory is true. But I would rather talk to true Physicist about that, than you. “See if you can find three people with the required maths to come up with a workable hypothesis….” I hate to tell this to you, me and my group are one of them, which is why I was interested in you idea in the very beginning. Sorry to see, you just belong to a group of blabber mouths, who talk a lot and say nothing. Continually and genuinely in my two posts I requested you to sketch details of your ideas, and instead you talk a load of bullshit, and well, the last two paras of your reply, which I haven’t taken the pains to even got through.
“You can have as many Bangs as you like and may I just assure you that they do . . .and they did…” I dont need assurance, dude, I need facts, and proof, and if you have none,
say so. “This controlling group of sociopathic narcissists never have been right and they still aren’t. But boy . . .do they ever love BEING RIGHT….” so you DO hate us for being right!!!! How desperately do you want to be right!!!!
Anyways, I shall not waste my time with idiots like you…..
Well my sincere and humble apologies. I have stumbled onto the resistance. No indeed I am no physicist. I am a Quantum Philosopher. There is great force indeed in your rebuttal. I suspected my turn of phrase might elicit something similar. I was in point of fact being somewhat playful and ironic and yes . . .stirring the pot. The plain fact is that rational science rarely gets it right in terms of their theories. The history of the development of all the gadgets which we love so much is testament to this. The telephone, the television, powered flight, radio, electric light. The list goes on. Almost every example of the emergence of each major technological breakthrough such as mentioned was preceded by one lonely looney OUTSIDE the field being howled down by all the experts IN the field. It seems that while experts built the Titanic it took amateurs to build the Ark . . .as it were. So please don’t be too upset with me. Your mob have a lot to answer for. In fact i do indeed have a great deal of respect for genuine empirical SCIENTIFIC METHOD. However human beings have proven themselves largely incapable of it And yes indeed . . .Scientists are indeed an arrogant lot. So is anyone who presumes to know me included. Much of the trouble we have in the world is now due to the fact that the rigid paradigm that you so passionately rush to the defence of is so convinced that God, intelligent design and any kind of metaphysics is Hogwash. The really BIG problem with this is that in taking this position you have indeed crossed the line. Science makes a category error in presuming to know the answer to the mystery of life. It can’t adjudicate on this matter yet it seeks to do so with great emphasis. By taking such a stance it precludes the possibility of the synergy that would otherwise be available for solving our greatest problems. Perhaps more humility and less blazing pride on both sides is in order. Anyway once again my apologies for the offence I have undoubtedly caused and I do wish you well in your endeavours
@ Panchi: Nice Work!
One question ! what is the origin of these density perturbations. If the universe in the beginning was a homogeneous system why did these density perturbations develop in the first place?
Hey Pawan
These density perturbations are just some temporary changes in the amount of energy/temperature/density in the otherwise homogeneous universe. They are basically quantum fluctuations which are results of Heisenberg’s Uncertainity Principle (have read this uncertainity relation in the energy-time form??). In the simplest form. basically Uncertainity Principle allows temporary appearance of energetic particles for a very brief period of time out of, well, out of nothhing! They are like spontaneous movements of energy in empty space (I saw a nice talk video on ‘Universe from Nothing’.. I will check and share it tomorrow if I can find it :)) This is what we call as Vacuum Energy.
Quoting Richard Morris – ”The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly “borrow” the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the “debt” back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles.”
Assuming the validity of the Inflationary model of early universe, it is expected that the cause of the current observed structures were the fluctuations that existed when inflation began. They were amplified by gravity and the structures were formed gradually!!
@Panchi: ”The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy” — Loosely speaking, is this one reason why we should expect Hawking radiation (is there a restriction on what particles are allowed under this principle?)??
Varun 🙂
Hawking Radiation is not completely and precisely understood by the Astrophysics community ‘yet’ – and unfortunately even I have not studied/read much about it to answer your question completely!! But I know that models based on these same quantum fluctuations are the strongest contenders to explain Hawking Radiation. When these ‘temporary appearance of energetic particles’ or the sudden birth of a particle-antiparticle pair happens near the event horizon, though it occurs for a very brief period of time but before they can destroy one another it is possible that one of them falls into the black hole while another is kicked out which takes with it mass and energy from the black hole.
For your next question on the restriction of particles, I am not very sure – but as suggested in http://www.obscure.org/physics-faq/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html, the Hawking radiation should consist of ”photons, neutrinos, and to a lesser extent all sorts of massive particles.”
@Panchi
Thanks, that was quite helpful. Along with that, I may have to ref. to the original paper by Hawking. The mysterious part about this whole affair, is that when the particle – anti-particle pair is created, the positive one escapes…. would be nice to know what determines this choice.
Despite being attacked for my somewhat adolescent behaviour I would like to make a suggestion for your natural consideration. There are no maths, just ideas.Our distinguished friends will be able to comment on the mathematical validity of same. Firstly it is observable that the constant pattern in nature is the self replicating system. This is observable in atoms and at the point where atoms have self-organised / emerged into biological systems, the basis of which are cells. Maturana and Varela have been recognised for their work to explain the phenomenon of self replication in cells and as the basis for the functioning of mind. Maturana has made up a word to explain this he calls it Autopoiesis – literally meaning self making. Interestingly while the structure of living cells is maintained through the processes of the living system the particles – i.e. the atoms and molecules are being continually replaced. In this way we can understand that the living cell is a basic reference point for sustainability in the biological domain. The property of the sustainable self-making, self-replicating system of a cell is made possible through precisely the same property of the atom. At the very least we can see that the two are functioning together in this way with the cell depending on this property in the atom. It is said that the relative scale between the cell and the atom is roughly similar to the scale between the cell and our solar system. Hence there is present within the universe a kind of fractal pattern which according to Bohm is also holographic. At every scale we can see the same pattern of atoms, cells, organisms, and larger systems right up to the level of the planets, solar system, galaxy and on up to cellular formations of groups of galaxies and the ultimate universal cell described by Smoot. The fundamental pattern on an electromagnetic level for all these coherent systems at every scale is according to Foster Gamble – (Thrive: What on Earth Will it Take) the Torus. This makes perfectly good sense and appears to be quite correct.
Is it . . . therefore altogether impossible that black holes exhibit the functioning of the Torus at larger scales? If Bohm is correct and the underlying energy in the wave enfolded sub-space of a cubic centimetre is equivalent to the energy in the entire space-time continuum x 10 to the power of 40 . . . .then is it not entirely possible that the universe, just like the smaller systems that we can observe everywhere within it is a sustainable system . . . a Torus? If black holes emit energy in what you refer to as “Hawking Radiation” could it be that the energy entering into the black hole is simply entering into the underlying energetic storehouse or some kind of ontological or Implicate Order as Bohm called it? Is it also entirely possible that the energy coming back out of the black hole is not in fact the SAME information that went in but merely acting as a kind of universal balance. Conceptually this makes sense because it is congruent with the idea of a fractal universe which exhibits sustainable self making properties at all scales. It is also suggestive of the idea that whatever is behind the universe as we know it is also part of a sustainable BALANCING mechanism. In this way ‘UNIVERSE” may well be in point of fact not the tiny fraction of the energy/information which we observe directly but a far more substantive domain from which many universes (such as the one we perceive) are capable of arising and dissolving.
While I have introduced much conjecture the facts of observable fractal hierarchical organisation which also exhibit the properties of self-organisation at all levels may provide a clue to the organising principle at the largest cosmic levels. Indeed there is nothing outwardly to be observed which actually contradicts this idea.
Dear Dr quantum,
Firstly, who or what on this earth is a quantum philosopher? I am really genuinely curious. I have heard of “quantum scientists” as you call them. Who are essentially physicists. I know philosophers, but I am not sure what you really are.
“There are no maths, just ideas.Our distinguished friends will be able to comment on the mathematical validity of same. ”
The whole point is to study nature by quantifying it. If you cannot quantify nature then you cannot predict what happens. If you cannot predict, they you cannot come up with ideas. So you see without math there are no ideas to be discussed, in fact when physicists describe a certain phenomenon there is a lot of mathematics that goes behind the description. That is something any scientist can vouch for. So you must understand that mathematics and physics go hand in had. This is true even for other sciences as well. If you feel otherwise please provide concrete examples and do not just start ranting about random stuff. So you see our distinguished friend might get disgruntled when you make such claims.
“This is observable in atoms and at the point where atoms have self-organised / emerged into biological systems, the basis of which are cells…..”(Rest of the paragraph)
I think you are referring to the work by david bohm…again no concrete ideas to test. Fractal nature can be only valid if the universe is self similar at all scales. which it is not. Going from the atomic scale to the molecular scale itself you will find that self similarity does not hold.
“This makes perfectly good sense and appears to be quite correct.”
What makes perfectly good sense? that energy moves in a torodial shape? why cant it move like a in a circle. or a rectangle ? how did you come up with this shape? can you cite any experimental work ?
“If Bohm is correct and the underlying energy in the wave enfolded sub-space of a cubic centimetre is equivalent to the energy in the entire space-time continuum x 10 to the power of 40”
That is IF Bohm is correct…you still havent shown that Bohm is indeed correct…also 10 power 40 what? what units ? where did you get this dimensionless constant from ?
“In this way ‘UNIVERSE” may well be in point of fact not the tiny fraction of the energy/information which we observe directly but a far more substantive domain from which many universes (such as the one we perceive) are capable of arising and dissolving.”
A parallel universe has never been observed. If you are so sure of what you are saying. You must then have figured out a way to look at these other “universes that are capable of arising and dissolving”. Please do share your ideas with us.
In all this you have not presented a concrete case for Bohm work or Gamble’s idea of a Torus. They might be good philosophical ideas to you but until you test them and come up with evident. Until you do at least a statistical study, you can cannot claim them to valid.
Today while walking along in the plaza I was thinking of what I was going to say to you and something happened to me that has never happened before. A pigeon flying under a large sign hit me quite firmly on the head with it’s flapping wing. It wasn’t painful just impossible to ignore. My explanation of this event would be to connect the singular & special nature of the occurrence with the idea i was thinking at the time. A bird associated with peacefulness touched me with its wing. Meaning derived from symbols has a rich and distinguished history. As Einstein has commented . . not everything that can be measured matters and not everything that matters can be measured. I do not claim to be psychic but I am going to make a prediction. One day you will discover the deeper truths of the living universe but it may be a few years off yet. In the meantime good luck to you with the measuring and testing. I know it’s what you do so who am i after all to judge you for that. Peace
Einstein also said – “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.”
If my view of the world is biased by science yours is equally biased by the dogma of intelligent design. But i am willing to look at the world for what it is and not through the narrow slits provided by intelligent design. I am willing to look at the other side of the fence if something concrete comes up. And most of all i am willing to have a genuine discussion without mud slinging and without trying to preach. You on the other hand talk about black holes and fractals without even understanding what they are. Physicists have spend whole careers on trying to understand these ideas that you refer to in a matter of fact way so don’t you dare think that you know better than them. On top of that you call them mediocre without even understanding the difficulties they face. Einstein was a genius, but he could not have done even a single percent of his work without the contributions of ” mediocre minds ” before him. Generations of scientists have slogged to reach this point where we have a handle on some of the basic ideas about nature.
I would like to conclude by a quote from a not so famous professor of mine(considering you seem to be a sucker for quotes) –
“just because you can string together a bunch of fancy words, does not mean your sentences will make sense”
T
Are you from another planet Dr. Quantum? You have so much knowledge about our Universe! And you know so many big words too! And I am amazed at your ability to put these words together to make a sentence which makes no sense to an Earthling such as myself. Respect to you Dr. Quantum! Teach me your philosophy please.
Dear Mr Kebab, it should be understood that we are all from another planet . .or should that be PLANE-ette. Another PLANE of the cosmos. Invisible to your outward eye. But like the magical Kingdom of ShangiLa quite obvious to those with the inner vision. And do I see this invisible Kingdom? Oh yes and carry on lively conversations to be sure. And while we are on the topic of language how is you SPELLing? You see language Mr Kebab is indeed a magical system capable of bringing forth entire worlds.Which is why it was originally referred to as SPELLing and is one of the present indicators that back in the olden days it was the Magi who preserved language as one of the basic ritualistic forms of creativity – of bringing things into manifestation. This magical SPEELING is of course still used but almost devoid of the deeper knowledge and now hidden in plain view of the masses of people. The world you bring forth depends of course on what language, spelling and therefore what mind-programme you happen to be running. For indeed our language is both shaped by and in turn shapes our mental picture of the world. This is a well established fact amongst academics, particularly feminists and various other revolutionaries, evolutionaries and assorted iconoclasts. Long ago in the mists of time . . .before time was straightened out and before Science attempted (quite successfully it would seem) to kill not just the living God/dess but indeed the living universe, most people were not fortunate or simply did not have access to the influence and the medium of language. But now anyone who can cut up a dead frog can tell the world ad nauseum how he – or she – has discovered the organ of the heart. Dr Mr Kebab, Dr Quantum begs to differ.
Pawan. It is not so much that my world view is biased by the dogma of “intelligent design”. . .though I can see how you might think that. In point of fact my view is informed by considerable research and study as is yours. It is also informed by personal experiences which have revealed to me certain facts about life. But of course these “facts” based on personal revelation are necessarily subjective, they are not facts as you would accept them. This is understandable and necessary. In any case here we are more or less shouting at each other from opposite sides of a river. That flowing river is of course life. I would suggest that my world view is indeed based on my own innate proclivities. It would seem that we are both deeply entrenched in our respective points of view.
My understanding is that what has emerged at this time in history as the means to bridge the great divide is the Science of Complexity. And I am not suggesting that the tension of opposites needs to resolved in total. Quite the opposite. Many of the commentators within the field of complexity are not mathematicians but philosophical commentators. This is also necessary. There is no such thing as balance, there is only ever balancing. We live in a world of possibility and not of certainty. Ervin Laszlo is a good example of someone who has managed to adequately bridge the great divide. Here is a philosopher of science and system theorist among other things who started out as a classical pianist. You may wish to look into some of his publications if you have not already . . .such as: Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos : The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality (Inner Traditions, 2006 . . .or even going back to the 1990s The Whispering Pond: A Personal Guide to the Emerging Vision of Science (Element Books, Ltd., 1996).
I would suggest that this is the “left wing” of science. The feminine aspect. You see . . .i wonder if even that concept – the division of masculine and feminine which is quite basic to my own system – has any place in your belief system. You want everything to be supported by a measured number. This insistence on measurement and the ability to be reproduced is to me an extreme bias towards the masculine. And as the book says – Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus. Worlds apart. The rigid insistence on proof as logic and as being what is correct is to me about as a appealing as the wife beater as hero – and just as brutal. But that’s just me and I do accept and do respect your method, I simply question your position in relation to other matters.
At this time in our collective history I would ask you to take an unbiased look at the labyrinth which the insistence and chauvinism of rigid materialism has brought the human family so deeply into. Complexity after all is simply the ability to incorporate more than the single trajectory it is in fact the chaos of the trinity. Feminine, predictably unpredictable, Chaotic and leading to revolution/evolution through irresistable change. In my language . . .the Goddess is very hard to kill and endlessly mysterious. Well it is nice to be invited, and so you are. Not to be a true believer, oh no! But a true conceiver based on the pregnant pause . . . of occupying the space between the points of polarity. All that that requires is the suspension of judgement. But that’s what you do! What’s up?
I wish I had the intellectual capacity to learn all that you folks are privileged to know, but I suppose just looking is privilege enough. Stellar.
Jared, I am just a masters student.. reading other’s works and getting fascinated!! And seriously speaking, if you love going through these mysteries of universe there are so many nice popular books – read them – and then you will know these things too! 🙂
That’s awesome. Believe me, I do. I enjoy reading Dr. Michio Kaku, he’s great at making the complicated understandable. And of course, there’s Sagan, Hawking, Tyson… all phenomenal. I’ve also been using the Khan Academy to learn more advanced math and physics. I’m not very good at it, but I think I’ll get it one day. It’s extraordinarily fun, regardless.
Wow!! 🙂 Carry on with these (I have not yet read any Tyson :p).. you are way ahead of me in this field then… Though slowly but steadily, hopefully I am catching up!! 🙂
Lol, I don’t know about that, but you should definitely check out his book, “Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries”. And “The Pluto Files…” still upset about that one. Good luck on your masters. That’s pretty cool!
thank u for the suggestions 🙂 will read his books too!! 🙂