--- Saibal Mitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508429

Thanks for the article, it is beautifully presented
and re-presented good entertainment for me. 

Brought back memories from Tegmark's child-age, when I
joined the chorus: "the Big Bang that never happened" 
and I formulated my version of why?: the retroactive
vision of Hubble's ingenious idea of an expanding
universe (because the redshift brought the acoustic
Dopler phenomenon to his mind in 1921) - it followed a
reverse route of a linear (d)evolution of the universe
from 'today's state' as our reductionist model shows
it from classical physics through QM - QED to even
postQ visions. The universe evolved non-linearly (some
like still to use the word: 'chaotically') so a
retrograde linearity is at best misconstrued. Then it
was assumed that all the 'physical laws' of our
presently observed model were fully applicable in
systems incredibly different from the present status -
sometimes with corrections I have to admit. It led to
a 'date' of the BB and a close date showed a sizable
universe in the calculations, so it must have inflated
(somehow - oh, that darn word!).
Tegmark does not ask: is there any real background for
such an inflationary belief? he asked "How can "THE"
inflation tested"? I have a conciliant mind and said:
Inflation? so be it. Ideationally, of course, because
we cannot know a word about 'how was that stage of
affairs THEN? My solution includes the 'change' in the
'consciousness' of the universe inside view when the
Space - Time ordering occurred (after a Big Bang which
I made in my narrative logically acceptable and quite
inevitable, pushing the 'unknown' one step backwards).
When the system changed from "no space" into "space"
it signified a 'huge' inflation from zero to big.
Similarly the marvels of the fractions of the "1st
sec" to introduce the physical narratives into that
starting universe of ours are natural, when the
a-temporal has changed into time-ordered, all right at
the beginning.
Now I imagined the instant of the ordering, but the
physicists like to measure and so they needed a
timespan, short enough to be negligible. (1^-43sec?).

Then, when 
Tegmar finished high school, I retired and worked out
a narrative of 'that' plenitude which gave rise
inevitably to the flash-wise fulgurations of
groupings, complexity-nods which (from the inside
view) are ALL universes (infinite number and
unrestricted qualities of them). That was my
Multiverse in an atemporal, aspatial plenitude,
dissipating as they formed, back, into the infinite
invariance, but allowing in their (universal?) inside
histories extended to a possible time-factor if such
developed in a particular universe.
I called such fulgurational occurrences BigBangs (one
word) and differentiated the 'inside view' - call it
physical etc. system, from the plenitude-view which
did not even notice them.
So the quewtion: where did we all come from? is not so
exciting in the views of my narrative.

Thanks again for the URL, it was an interesting
lecture.

John Mikes
> 
> 
> Tegmark's essay was not well received (perhaps
> Godfrey didn't like it? :-) )
> 
> 
> How did it all begin?
> Authors: Max Tegmark
> Comments: 6 pages, 6 figs, essay for 2005 Young
> Scholars Competition in
> honor of Charles Townes; received Dishonorable
> Mention
> 
> How did it all begin? Although this question has
> undoubtedly lingered for as
> long as humans have walked the Earth, the answer
> still eludes us. Yet since
> my grandparents were born, scientists have been able
> to refine this question
> to a degree I find truly remarkable. In this brief
> essay, I describe some of
> my own past and ongoing work on this topic,
> centering on cosmological
> inflation. I focus on
> (1) observationally testing whether this picture is
> correct and
> (2) working out implications for the nature of
> physical reality (e.g., the
> global structure of spacetime, dark energy and our
> cosmic future, parallel
> universes and fundamental versus environmental
> physical laws).
> (2) clearly requires (1) to determine whether to
> believe the conclusions. I
> argue that (1) also requires (2), since it affects
> the probability
> calculations for inflation's observational
> predictions.
> 
> 


Reply via email to