--- 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. > >
