1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Hawking rewrites history... backwards

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout' started by BobFinn*, Jun 21, 2006.

  1. BobFinn*

    BobFinn* Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2000
    Messages:
    11,438
    Likes Received:
    6
    Published online: 21 June 2006

    Hawking rewrites history... backwards

    To understand the Universe we must start from the here and now.
    Philip Ball


    How did the Universe begin? Many scientists would regard this as one of the most profound questions of all. But to Stephen Hawking, who has perhaps come closer than anyone to answering it, the question doesn't in fact even exist.

    Hawking, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and his colleague Thomas Hertog of the European Laboratory for Particle Physics at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland, are about to publish a paper claiming that the Universe had no unique beginning1. Instead, they argue, it began in just about every way imaginable (and maybe some that aren't).

    Out of this profusion of beginnings, the vast majority withered away without leaving any real imprint on the Universe we know today. Only a tiny fraction of them blended to make the current cosmos, Hawking and Hertog claim.

    That, they insist, is the only possible conclusion if we are to take quantum physics seriously. "Quantum mechanics forbids a single history," says Hertog.

    The researchers' theory comes in response to a problem raised by 'string theory', one of the best hopes for a theory of everything. String theory permits innumerable different kinds of universe, most of them very different from the one we inhabit. Some physicists suspect that an unknown factor will turn up that rules out most of these universes.

    But Hawking and Hertog say that the countless 'alternative worlds' of string theory may actually have existed. We should picture the Universe in the first instants of the Big Bang as a superposition of all these possibilities, they say; like a projection of billions of movies played on top of one another.

    It all adds up

    This might sound odd, but it is precisely the view adopted by quantum theory. Think of a particle of light reaching our eye from a lamp. Common sense suggests that it simply travels in a straight line from the bulb to the eye. But to make correct predictions about the particle's behaviour, quantum mechanics must consider all other possible paths too, including ones in which, say, the photon bounces around the walls thousands of times before reaching us.

    This summation of all paths, proposed in the 1960s by physicist Richard Feynman and others, is the only way to explain some of the bizarre properties of quantum particles, such as their apparent ability to be in two places at once. The key point is that not all paths contribute equally to the photon's behaviour: the straight-line trajectory dominates over the indirect ones.

    Hertog argues that the same must be true of the path through time that took the Universe into its current state. We must regard it as a sum over all possible histories.

    Take it from the top

    He and Hawking call their theory 'top-down' cosmology, because instead of looking for some fundamental set of initial physical laws under which our Universe unfolded, it starts 'at the top', with what we see today, and works backwards to see what the initial set of possibilities might have been. In effect, says Hertog, the present 'selects' the past.

    Within just a few seconds after the Big Bang, a single history had already come to dominate the Universe, he explains. So from the 'classical' viewpoint of big objects such as stars and galaxies, things happened only one way after that point. Other 'histories', say, one in which the Earth formed only 4,000 years ago, have made no significant contribution to this cosmic evolution.

    But in the first instants of the Big Bang, there existed a superposition of ever more different versions of the Universe, instead of a unique history. And most crucially, Hertog says that "our current Universe has features frozen in from this early quantum mixture".

    In other words, some of these alternative histories have left their imprint behind. This is why Hertog and Hawking insist that their 'top-down' cosmology is testable. Hertog says that the theory predicts the pattern of the variations in intensity of microwave background radiation, the afterglow of the Big Bang now imprinted on the sky, which reveal fluctuations in the fireball of the nascent Universe. These variations are minute, but space-based detectors have measured them ever more accurately over the past several years.

    As the two researchers work out top-down cosmology in more detail, they hope to be able to calculate the spectrum of these microwave fluctuations and compare it with observations.

    The theory also suggests an answer to the puzzle of why some of the 'constants of nature' seem finely tuned to a value that allows life to evolve. If we start from where we are now, it is obvious that the current Universe must 'select' those histories that lead to these conditions. Otherwise we simply wouldn't be here.

    http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060619/full/060619-6.html
     
  2. DrNuegebauer

    DrNuegebauer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2000
    Messages:
    12,713
    Likes Received:
    9,952
    sounds a bit like they made up a contained system!

    A theory which they will test by laws within their theory to prove the theory true. They just use big words and concepts most of us know nothing about so that it sounds impressive.

    Never been a fan of Hawkings --> far too full of himself!!
     
  3. pradaxpimp

    pradaxpimp Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,025
    Likes Received:
    71
    I wonder if his theory has legs to stand on.












    HAHAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA i'm so witty.
     
  4. aboinamedray

    aboinamedray Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    thats just wrong :p funny, but wrong
     
  5. mr_gootan

    mr_gootan Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2001
    Messages:
    1,616
    Likes Received:
    121
    [after playing out all possible outcomes of Top-down cosmology]
    Hawking: Greetings, Professor Hertog.
    Professor Hertog: Hello, Stephen.
    Hawking: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
     
  6. Dubious

    Dubious Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,318
    Likes Received:
    5,090
    If we start from where we are now, it is obvious that the current Universe must 'select' those histories that lead to these conditions. Otherwise we simply wouldn't be here.

    I think 'select' is a curious word to use here, seems like the author has an agenda. If infinite possibilities exist why would we find the current state of the universe improbable? Given enough time and enough change the universe as we know would in fact be almost inevitable. It's just the limited perspective of man as observer that makes our existence seem Devine.

    (The billion monkeys with typewritters theory)
     
  7. Steve_Francis_rules

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 1999
    Messages:
    8,467
    Likes Received:
    300

    But if there are infinite possibilities then our current state is only ONE of an infinite number of states and so how is that inevitable?
     
  8. boomboom

    boomboom I GOT '99 PROBLEMS

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 1999
    Messages:
    12,769
    Likes Received:
    9,424
    Why don't they quit BS'ing about stuff that won't better anyone's existence...and use their energies to figure out an even more unanswerable question...why hasn't Kevin Federline's 15 minutes expired!!!??!!
     
  9. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    45,954
    Likes Received:
    28,048
    It's sounds like a form of competitive evolution.... They're still at a phase where they need some numbers for it to stand. I doubt they could boldly say that other universes still exist due to testability, so the possibility is more philosophy than physics atm.

    Who knows? Maybe the theory can speak for itself....
     
  10. Dubious

    Dubious Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    18,318
    Likes Received:
    5,090
    Because time is infinite and change is constant so eventually every possibility should go floating by. The posssible universes may be limited by the principles of physices but the universe we see now is obviously within the range of possibilities. You could say that if the possibilites are infinite then none are inevitable, I wouldn't argue with you. It's purley theoretical and we don't really know squat, but he trick is to get outside the realm of the human scale. Consider that the universe we see as a result of the big bang might be but a tiny tiny slice of time or that it may coexist in the vastness of dark space with an infinite number of other big bang universes or others types we can't even conceive.

    Even if you only consider our observable universe, there are probably hundreds of billions of planets where lfe might arise. That's probably enough by itself to consider human-like life probable.
     

Share This Page