There was no beginning? New theory based on quantum equations predicts that there was no big bang , no beginning to this universe. The paper published in "Physics Letter B" argue that there was no s...
"Where Do Space and Time Come From?" - by George Musser
[Scientific American (article) - 2012]
"....As formulated by Maldacena in the late 1990s, the holographic principle describes a bulk where dark energy has a negative density, warping spacetime into a so-called anti-de Sitter geometry. But this is just a theorist’s playground. In the real universe, dark energy has a positive density, for a de Sitter geometry or some approximation thereof. Extending the holographic principle to such a geometry is fraught. The boundary of 4-D de Sitter spacetime is a 3-D space lying in the infinite future. The emergent dimension in this case would not be of space but of time, which is hard even for theoretical physicists to wrap their minds around. But if they succeed in formulating a version of the holographic principle for a de Sitter geometry, it would not only apply to the real universe, but would also explain what time really is. A lack of understanding of time is at the root of almost every deep problem in fundamental physics today...."
►(Scientific American article): bit.ly/1DLTBdN
------LIterature pertaining to the subject of Cosmology and Conformational Models of the Universe****
►D-branes in anti-de-Sitter space : thesis.library.caltech.edu/2380/
►Anti-de-Sitter spacetime and its uses:
►Dirac operator on the Riemann sphere:
►Boundary of Space-Time
►Anti De Sitter Space And Holography
►The Holographic Bound in Anti-de Sitter Space
arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9805114 ... See MoreSee Less
[Excerpt from Casper Henderson's "The Book of Barely Imagined Beings"]
Guardian: Science article/blog | The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin – review
"In March 1955, about a month before his own death, Albert Einstein sent a letter to the family of his recently deceased friend Michele Besso. “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me,” he wrote. “That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however stubbornly persistent.”
I do not know whether Besso’s family was comforted by this claim, but most of those who have a solid grasp of the issues say that Einstein was right about the science. A debate going back at least to Heraclitus (535-475BCE), who said that the primary feature of the universe is that it is always changing, and Parmenides (who said that there is no such thing as change) appears to have been settled. Indeed in 1949, on the occasion of Einstein’s 70th birthday, Kurt Gödel presented him with a mathematical proof of the nonexistence of time. Nature, it appears, is governed by eternal laws that stand outside time.
Not so fast. Notable among those who disagree is Lee Smolin, from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada. Smolin is one of the bad boys of contemporary physics and cosmology; a generator of radical ideas and an iconoclast. In the mid 90s he proposed that black holes spawn baby universes. In the middle of the last decade he published a searing attack on string theory which, he said, had failed to create a single testable prediction. And in his 2013 bestseller, Time Reborn, he argued that time is real and nothing transcends it, not even the laws of nature. Such laws are, like everything else, features of the present, and can evolve.
I’ve heard it said that many physicists in the academy groan at the very mention of Smolin’s name. But if he is wrong, he may at least be wrong in an interesting way. Strikingly, Smolin believes the reinstatement of time has implications for our daily lives. “If the flow of time is not an illusion, it makes our lives more precious and valuable,” he says. This might not seem as consoling as Einstein’s view that death does not have the finality we think it does. But if the laws of physics can change and evolve, so too can the space of possible futures. “The impression that we have that we can create novelty is true,” says Smolin. “This makes the universe much more hospitable. We can have free will. We have choices. I find that a much more comforting idea.”
Smolin has not been cowed by the sceptical reception of his ideas to date. And his new book, a broadside against many of the most widely accepted theories in cosmology, is co-written with someone who is even more of a maverick than he is. Roberto Mangabeira Unger is a humanist, a professor at the Harvard Law School whose students have included Barack Obama, and a progressive politician. He served as a minister in the administration of Lula da Silva in Brazil from 2007 to 2009. As a political philosopher he has achieved prominence, or notoriety, with calls for fundamental reform of democratic, market and civic structures across the world. His ideal is what he terms “deep freedom”, whereby all people, recognising both their mortality and their unbounded potential, can become more god-like. The self, he says, has indeterminate if not unlimited depth, and there is more dignity and potential in the commonplace than the grand.
Unger can sound more like a prophet – or to his detractors a crank – than a legal scholar. In The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound (2007) he says that the root of human experience is “groundlessness – astonishment that we exist, that the world exists, and that the world and our situation in it are the way they are rather than another way”. Astonishment, he says, “is accompanied … by awareness of the incomprehensibility, and of the sheer alienness, of the world in which we find ourselves.” The change of life that we should seek, he writes in The Religion of the Future (2014), “is to live in such a way that we die only once … We squander the good of life by surrendering to a diminished way of being in the world. We settle for routine and compromise. We stagger, half-conscious, through the world. Anxious for the future, we lose life in the only time that we have, the present.”
You might expect a book co-authored by Smolin and Unger to be an exchange about science and human values – something, perhaps, in the region of the 1930 dialogue between Einstein and the polymath Rabindranath Tagore. But The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time is not that kind of thing: it is a big and daunting book, harder to read than recent works by either author. The first section, by Unger, includes among other things an exploration of the global, irreversible and continuous attributes of time, followed by an analysis of proto-ontological assumptions. The second section, by Smolin, contains an approach to solving the meta-law dilemma, outlining linear cyclic models, branching models and branching cyclic cosmologies before it dives into cosmological natural selection, pluralistic cosmological scenarios and the principle of precedence.
If it sounds difficult that’s because it is. Still, some essential points can be readily grasped. Unger and Smolin want to overturn a picture of cosmology with which many of us are broadly familiar through a hundred different popular accounts. In that version, the universe – and therefore time as part of the space-time continuum – came into being following a big bang 13.8bn years ago. At first the universe was inconceivably tiny but then approximately 10 to the power of minus 37 seconds into the expansion, something called cosmic inflation led to exponential growth and the seeds of what we observe today. Oh and, the theory suggests, ours is just one of an infinite number of universes in the multiverse.
Unger and Smolin say that parts of this model are essentially preposterous. There is, they argue, just one universe. Time is real and the laws of nature are not timeless but evolve. Mathematics is not a description of some separate timeless, Platonic reality, but is a description of the properties of one universe.
Kafka once asked, if a book doesn’t wake us up with a blow on the head, what are we reading it for? “A book must be the axe for the frozen sea inside us.” This tries to be such a book. For many of us, it may be too heavy to lift up so that we can bring it down with a crash on the ice, but we may watch vigilantly for any fractures that appear from its use elsewhere."
►Guardian: Science (article): bit.ly/1LXBMyn ... See MoreSee Less
Some aspect of Alan Guth's multiverse theory, along with other cosmological brane theories, may actually have a chance of having supporting evidence, at least to the existence of interacting parallel universes......This blog post highlights the ongoing commencement of a new experiment that promises to validate the existence of multidimensional branes by measuring (via detectors) the level of flux coming from baryon particles (i.e. neutrons) emitted from nuclear reactors......
Stemming from the recent setback created by faulty, misinterpreted data coming from the BICEP2 experiment, gravity waves, the central focus of the BICEP2 experiment, may not be the only indicator of possible extra universes similar to our own. Sarrazin and Co's experiment is based off of the theory that validates the existence of symmetric "partner" baryon particles. The particles are inherently in-synch with one another through a quantum mechanism known as quantum entanglement; wherein, one neutron particle exist in this universe, while its 'entangled' partner particle stakes residence in another universe. Disruptions in the gravitational field as well as the occurrence of highly energetic particle collisions (induced by nuclear fission) may very well have the propensity 'expose' leaking, extra-dimensional "partner" particles, which initially reside in another parallel universe, adjacent to our own......
This research has strong implications, not only as it relates to conventional "brane-concept" cosmological models, (proposing the existence of parallel universes, existing in a higher dimension), but also the possible validation of Super-Symmetry, which (among its other predictions), points to the existence super-symmetric partner particles, providing a complete depiction of the Standard Model. Evidence of String-Field Theory/M-Theory will re-energize the debate on the existence of oscillating, vibrating energy bands which dictate the behavior of every known particle in this universe as well as every other universe that occupies the "bulk"......Thanks to strong evidence (or, looking at it from a another viewpoint, as it pertains to the lack of evidence supporting string theory and supersymmetry), coming from CERN, many of the well-known theories regarding Super-Symmetry and String theory have taken quite a beating (figuratively speaking) in the recent years. Therefore, this kind of experimental data (if it turns out to validate Sarrazin and Co's hypothesis), will make string theory (as a "legitimate" theory with experimental support) undeniable, sparking an emerging era in "New Physics" research, which goes far beyond the Standard Model.....(Nick).
The paper on this experiment can be found here►►
The arXiv blog post (story) can be found here:
►https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-search-for-neutrons-that-leak-into-our-world-from-other-universes-318bfff97f0f ... See MoreSee Less
Derek Potter"Physicists have already begun to look for evidence of this by shining a powerful laser beam at an opaque wall and using a detector on the other side to see if any pass through. These experiments have not yet found any positive evidence" Strange, that.3 years ago · 2
Brain controlling Prosthetic Limbs Futuristic movies predicted long time ago that humans will be able to develop and use artificial body’s parts. The only tiny little detail is that no one mentione...