Diigo Links

Monday, June 07, 2010

After reading the comments in the article:

"news.discovery.com/space/primordial-dust-free-monsters-lurk-at-the-edge-of-the-universe.html"

Dr. Ian mentions in the comments that these astronomers are "looking at" light from objects which existed prior to what we know as "stars". And then he says "Wow!" Sure, I agree. Wow.

But Dr. Ian also mentions in the comments that primordial super massive black holes and quasi-stellar-objects may just be leftover remnants of the hi-NRG state of the early universe. Now that's where I would put the "Wow!"

I'm a subscriber to a combination of cosmological models. One is Andre Linde's "ekpyrotic theory" a.ka. "Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe" a.k.a. Nonsingular Regenerating Inflationary Universe. Pictures and papers here: www.stanford.edu/~alinde/

And then there's the image via Neil Turok of colliding branes:

www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ngt1000/branes_max.gif

If you take that image as a reference point, or a starting point, it's easy enough to see how a wavy membrane impacting another wavy membrane would distribute energy in a wavy way. So, we're talking about peaks and troughs here - with the peaks maybe representing a great deal of energy and troughs representing something of the vacuum of space. Thereby we get the highly uniform, but somewhat lumpy distribution of matter in space.

But what Dr. Ian is saying in his comment is that there could have been a circumstance where the universe sort-of flat-lined. That there could have places of equilibrium around which the Newtonian physics of our common experience have never existed. In effect, we're "orbiting" around these portions of non-universe, these places of pre-universe. Now, whether I'm reading too much into the comment or misinterpreting it, I don't much care. The idea is as sound as many (eg: universe rides on the back of a turtle, etc.) and to me anyway, it's a compelling image. It's a window. Wow!





This 2004 SciAm article doesn't look to be available anymore - too bad. Good for reference though. You (and by "you", I mean "I") could probably dig this up in a library somewhere.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-myth-of-the-beginning-2004-05&page=6

No comments: