Universe 'child of previous one' (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

By Sarah Cruddas
***
It challenges the conventional view of the cosmos, which observations show to be 12-14 billion years old.

The new ideas, reported in the journal Science, may explain why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, the researchers say.

"At present the conventional view is that all of space, time, matter and energy began at a single point, which then expanded and cooled, leaving the Universe as it is today," said Professor Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, New Jersey.

"However, this new theory suggests that there's a continuous cycle of universes, with each a repeat of the last, but not an exact replica.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4974134.stm

[Sinti]

1. Makes sense, actually - and perhaps other universes exist, as well. n/t

[Union Thug]

2. is this the same as the oscillating universe people were

talking about twenty years ago? Fascinating stuff.

[longship]

3. Not the same thing.

That was a single universe banging and collapsing, banging and collapsing, banging...

[azurnoir]

4. Makes sense

there are cycles to everything, why not the universe itself? Ever study fractals, they are repeated shape (sort of) on both a macro and micro level.

[opihimoimoi]

5. This aspect comes under the Alternitive Universes Theory

Where are trillions upon trillions of Universes, coming and going with Big Bangs, surround us and our Universe.....

[Kutjara]

6. Depends on how many Universes there have been.

If time truly has no beginning or end, then it is conceivable that there have been an infinite number of universes before ours and will be an infinite number after ours. Given that our Universe has a finite number of particles that are moving and interacting in a finite number of ways, that implies that there have been and will be an infinite number of Universes exactly like ours (indeed an infinite number of Universes of every possible configuration of the finite particles).

That means that we have had infinite George W. Bush's in our collective past and (more depressingly) will have an infinite number of them to look forward to.

OK, now I'm really depressed.

[Occulus]

12. Don't be....

well, not about this.

An infinite number of universes could be realized in one of two ways: existing in parallel or running in a chain. In the parallel configuration, there is a universe born for each possibility resulting from the moment prior to an irreversible event; in the series configuration, it's just an endless chain of universes. Since space is infinite in volume (at least, as far as we know), these universes can expand forever. They'll eventually die, though, so what we're really talking about is an endless cycle of renewal- somewhat poetic in and of itself.

I'll try to describe the parallel configuration; it bends the mind quite well. Here goes:

Consider a shattering glass. The directions of the shards of the glass- and, indeed, the exact surfaces of the shards themselves- are determined by factors not only limited to the descent speed and rotation of the glass itself (we're not limited to simply dropping it; we can throw it and spin it, too), but also the strength of the material itself, any faults in the glass, and its thickness, among other factors. To the eye and the hand, these may seem uniform throughout, but from an actual measurement standpoint, there can be (and always are; there is no 'perfect' glass) subtle variations throughout the glass. What this actually means is that the glass will shatter in a completely unpredictable fashion, and the end result will depend upon the conditions present at the time of the irreversible event- in this case, dropping or throwing the glass.

In some universes, the glass is not dropped, and in still other universes, there is no glass. In ours, the glass is dropped and shatters, so for our purposes we'll only consider those universes in which a glass shatters.

In how many different ways can a glass shatter? If we're speaking of parallel universes, the Many Worlds Interpretation posits that a universe is created to accommodate each possibility, considering all factors present at the time of the irreversible event.

Thus, you are left with a bundle of universes just for one shattering glass. Now add to that concept all the little decisions you make, and all the things happening around you. Now consider all the particles involved in this madly intricate dance.

Then add free will.

If you look at it from a certain angle, the conscious mind is the rudder by which we chart our path through many possible universes. In that peculiar way, the world really is what you make of it.

[silverweb]

7. Fascinating!

How absurd those who claim exclusive knowledge of "The Truth" through their restrictive little dogmas look next to this. How petty most of our squabbles seem....

[roguevalley]

8. there's a theory out there, not string theory but ... it rather involves

undulating planes. they move in infinite number and when they touch each other, kaboom. I love this new idea. makes you wonder where the epicenter of all things is.

[Kutjara]

9. The 'metaverse' might be just...

...an infinite space of 'branes' moving under the influence of their unknowable physical laws, occasionally contacting and birthing new universes or separating and extinguishing them.

Marvellous idea.

[roguevalley]

10. I think so. PBS had a show on it a while ago and I was enraptured.

[Random_Australian]

15. I was going to say that!

[rman]

13. sounds like "branes" - which is part of string theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

the contemporary incarnation of string theory is called "M theory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

[Random_Australian]

16. No, this idea was older than string theory, I thought.

IIRC, that is. I do remember what seemed to be ideas of that sort disassociated with string theory though.

[Odin2005]

11. This the Ekpyrotic Model of the Big Bang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

[Swede]

14. Isn't this the same as the open vs. closed universe theory.

One theory that it expands forever the other that it collapses and repeats.

[Random_Australian]

17. open vs closed just dealt with the fate if the universe. Even in closed

the universe would not have to repeat, I think the difference now is that they are theorising that it would, rather than stating that it is a possibility.

[daleo]

18. These ideas are always interesting

But I don't see any possible empirical tests, at least none are mentioned in the article. So, they strike me as having more to do with metaphysics than physics.