Universe May Have Been Around Forever, According to Rainbow Gravity

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/universe-may-have-been-around-since-forever-according-to-rainbow-gravity-theory/

by bmelton • 13 years ago

57 47 13 years ago

pbs.org

laureny• 13 years ago

I don't see why the idea that "the universe might have been around forever" is so surprising since as far as I know, the prevalent theory is that time started at the big bang, which means that saying "before the big bang" makes as much sense as "going north while standing at the north pole".

Natsu• 13 years ago

If you posit that our universe is embedded in some higher space, it might still make sense to ask what's above the "north pole."

loceng2• 13 years ago

I think our best guess is that our universe is connected to other universes, perhaps through a larger bubble / body, and perhaps through that connecting through to perhaps infinite other universes.

loceng2• 13 years ago

People find comfort in knowing when something starts, and when something ends. It stems from controlling, wanting control over your environment. You can let that go though, and then the universe being infinite is beautiful.

sev2• 13 years ago

the prevalent [in the general public, and therefore in the scientific community] theory

The reason it's prevalent is because it is the most easily understood and acceptable by most people/religions/cultures - not because it is the most accurate or plausible explanation.

chc2• 13 years ago

I don't think that's actually how the scientific community as a whole evaluates theories.

chc2• 13 years ago

But that still isn't the same thing as "forever." Time does not go back infinitely — according to current theory, the universe definitely has a beginning in time.

jckt2• 13 years ago

The whole dimension-tautology has always irked me. Time, as a unit, is simply the "time" it takes for light to travel a certain distance. Distance, OTOH, is the "distance" it takes for light to travel under a certain amount of time. AFAIK one of the authors of this theory is a proponent of a variable speed of light. So if at some point in time light didn't move, then time didn't move, then that would mean that our universe existed since forever...? Not a physicist, but sometimes I feel weird when I am reminded of the fact that the Big Bang had a definite starting point 13.8B years ago (as you have done so), and then think about how time is really... a function of length and length is just a function of time.

Strilanc• 13 years ago

In this case forever doesn't refer to "all of time" but to "an unbounded past".

foxhill• 13 years ago

given that a sensical idea of time couldn't really exist before the universe, i believe it is sound to say that current understandings of the universe already state this.

just that "forever" is 13.8 billion years long and counting..

dhughes2• 13 years ago

I've always wondered if in the entire universe we humans are the first creatures to have evolved and we will spread out populating the universe.

jdjb• 13 years ago

Seems statistically unlikely given the hypothesized number of life-supporting planets + our planet's age versus the age of the universe.

zw123456• 13 years ago

I don't think the article explains how the rainbow theory explains the existence of Cosmic Background Radiation.

thenerdfiles• 13 years ago

Didn't Christiaan Huygens author a system of mechanics of light in rainbows[0]? — he developed an angle prediction system in algebra, if I recall.

[0] http://ww2.odu.edu/~jadam/docs/jadam_geometric_optics_and_ra..., http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14725/14725-h/14725-h.htm

trekky1700• 13 years ago

I think this is the best title on HN today. Especially the "According to Rainbow Gravity" missing the theory bit.

tedunangst2• 13 years ago

What about according to Gravity's Rainbow?

terabytest• 13 years ago

The article doesn't even explain how they come to the conclusion that the universe has been there forever from the "rainbow gravity" concept.

lkrubner• 13 years ago

Rewind the tape to 1900. Everyone who is non-religious assumes the universe has been around since forever: it is eternal. Then people like Edwin Hubble and Georges Lemaître notice that distant galaxies are red-shifted, and they calculate the amount. From this they conclude that the universe is expanding. From this they conclude that the universe must have at one point been compressed to a single point, and then exploded: a Big Bang.

But if there is no red shift, then there is no Big Bang, and the Universe is not expanding. Therefore we go back to where we were in 1900, when everyone assumes that the universe is eternal.

ExpiredLink• 13 years ago

Great! Just one detail is missing to complete the picture: explain eternity.

millstone2• 13 years ago

Proponents of a static universe have a lot of explaining to do. For example, older galaxies tend to look lumpy and amorphous, because they interacted and collided with other galaxies more often in our early, dense universe. Symmetric elliptical galaxies and our structured Milky Way tend to be younger.

Also, you can have a static universe with a beginning, or an expanding universe with no beginning. Rainbow gravity falls into this latter category.

trumbitta2• 13 years ago

Glad you too noticed that. I was feeling extremely stupid and ignorant for not having understood the correlation between rainbow gravity and an eternal universe.

AnthonyMouse2• 13 years ago

How is this supposed to be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics?

csmuk2• 13 years ago

Perhaps the second law is only locally true.

AnthonyMouse2• 13 years ago

We know it isn't locally true. That's how the inside of your refrigerator gets colder after you supply it with electricity.

easy_rider2• 13 years ago

The fundamentals seems to be provable by data-mining on gamma Ray bursts.

Funny coincidence, I just started "mining" some BOINC projects again since a week ago, including Einstein@home, because I couldn't stand all the CryptoCoin mining talk lately.

https://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Einstein@Home

http://www.aei.mpg.de/972495/einsteinathome_gammapsrs2013

easy_rider2• 13 years ago

The article doesn't seem to want to explain anything to me..

Myrth2• 13 years ago

it's a nice reminder that big bang is one of theories and not an indisputable dogma

anigbrowl• 13 years ago

(somewhat) more informative Scientific American article on which this useless blog post is based: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rainbow-gra...

stephenwinter22• 13 years ago

I didn't really discuss the Rainbow Gravity Theory. But I referred to the Scientific American article here<br> http://hashsign.co.uk/contemporary/by/thoughts/pop-pop-bang-... My statement is: The difference between singularity and the world is differentiation. Differentiation is a kind of 'stretching'. The methods of stretching are called time and dimensions in space.<br> It's nothing else than a crutch for thinking. 'All at once' is for thinking equal to nothing (singularity).

millstone2• 13 years ago

Here's the (much better) SciAm article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rainbow-gra...

Universe May Have Been Around Forever, According to Rainbow Gravity

Related Stories