tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post2429232809160105893..comments2024-01-04T07:33:10.137-05:00Comments on Seldom Wrong, Never in Doubt: Pulsating Universe Cycles BackJon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNIDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04595651777890086293noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-90199243177378513632010-12-07T08:35:21.444-05:002010-12-07T08:35:21.444-05:00Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which th...Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which the universe is expanding is increasing. (Cosmologists postulate "dark energy" to "explain" this phenomenon.) So most cosmologists have abandoned the idea that the universe will end in a big crunch or that it will oscillate indefinitely between big bangs and big crunches.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Penrose agrees with that assessment. His theory is that the universe undergoes an indefinite series of big bangs without any intermediate big crunches. As the universe ages, it becomes less and less organized. Black holes, meanwhile, convert more and more of its matter into radiation. The end result is a maximum state of entropy, in which the entire universe consists of a uniform state of radiation. At that point, the known laws of physics break down into a singularity (devoid of space-time) that results in another big bang. In other words, the universe evolves from one big bang to another without intermediate big crunches.<br /><br /> <br /><br />To his credit, Penrose recognizes that there are some gaps in his theory. For one thing, there’s no evidence (so far) that black holes will inevitably convert all matter into radiation. For another, there’s no reason (yet) to think that a singularity must result in a big bang. But it’s interesting to find out that (apparently) there is at least some evidence in favor of the Penrose hypothesis. If the evidence holds up under scrutiny, maybe it will help put an end to all the string theory/multiverse nonsense that has dominated recent cosmology. One can only hope. In the meantime, thanks for the link. I was unaware of the (alleged) empirical evidence.<br /><br /> <br /><br />I should emphasize, however, as you've already noted, that the success of the Penrose hypothesis would in no way constitute a refutation of classical apologetics. The question of why there’s something rather than nothing would still remain. An endless series of big bangs would be in no less need of explanation than only one.JB in CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-5228695260167361922010-12-06T22:57:06.638-05:002010-12-06T22:57:06.638-05:00Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which th...Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which the universe is expanding is increasing. (Cosmologists postulate "dark energy" to "explain" this phenomenon.) So most cosmologists have abandoned the idea that the universe will end in a big crunch or that it will oscillate indefinitely between big bangs and big crunches. <br /><br />Penrose agrees with that assessment. His theory is that the universe undergoes an indefinite series of big bangs without any intermediate big crunches. As the universe ages, it becomes less and less organized. Black holes, meanwhile, convert more and more of its matter into radiation. The end result is a maximum state of entropy, in which the entire universe consists of a uniform state of radiation. At that point, the known laws of physics break down into a singularity (devoid of space-time) that results in another big bang. In other words, the universe evolves from one big bang to another without intermediate big crunches.<br /><br />To his credit, Penrose recognizes that there are some gaps in his theory. For one thing, there’s no evidence (so far) that black holes will inevitably convert all matter into radiation. For another, there’s no reason (yet) to think that a singularity must result in a big bang. But it’s interesting to find out that (apparently) there is at least some evidence in favor of the Penrose hypothesis. If the evidence holds up under scrutiny, maybe it will help put an end to all the string theory/multiverse nonsense that has dominated recent cosmology. One can only hope. In the meantime, thanks for the link. I was unaware of the (alleged) empirical evidence.<br /><br />I should emphasize, however, as you've already noted, that the success of the Penrose hypothesis would in no way constitute a refutation of classical apologetics. The question of why there’s something rather than nothing would still remain. An endless series of big bangs would be in no less need of explanation than one.JB in CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-74562437948944646692010-12-06T20:08:43.132-05:002010-12-06T20:08:43.132-05:00Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which th...Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which the universe is expanding is increasing. (Cosmologists postulate "dark energy" to "explain" this phenomenon.) So most cosmologists have abandoned the idea that the universe will end in a big crunch or that it will oscillate indefinitely between big bangs and big crunches. <br /><br />Penrose agrees with that assessment. His theory is that the universe undergoes an indefinite series of big bangs without any intermediate big crunches. As the universe ages, it becomes less and less organized. Black holes, meanwhile, convert more and more of its matter into radiation. The end result is a maximum state of entropy, in which the entire universe consists of a uniform state of radiation. At that point, the known laws of physics break down into a singularity (devoid of space-time) that results in another big bang. In other words, the universe evolves from one big bang to another without intermediate big crunches.<br /><br />To his credit, Penrose recognizes that there are some gaps in his theory. For one thing, there’s no evidence (so far) that black holes will inevitably convert all matter into radiation. For another, there’s no reason (yet) to think that a singularity must result in a big bang. But it’s interesting to find out that (apparently) there is at least some evidence in favor of the Penrose hypothesis. If the evidence holds up under scrutiny, maybe it will help put an end to all the string theory/multiverse nonsense that has dominated recent cosmology. One can only hope. In the meantime, thanks for the link. I was unaware of the (alleged) empirical evidence.<br /><br />I should emphasize, however, as you've already noted, that the success of the Penrose hypothesis would in no way constitute a refutation of classical apologetics. The question of why there’s something rather than nothing would still remain. An endless series of big bangs would be in no less need of explanation than one.JB in CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-12946420881454539652010-12-05T18:42:14.661-05:002010-12-05T18:42:14.661-05:00Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which th...Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which the universe is expanding is increasing. (Cosmologists postulate "dark energy" to "explain" this phenomenon.) So most cosmologists have abandoned the idea that the universe will end in a big crunch or that it will oscillate indefinitely between big bangs and big crunches. <br /><br />Penrose agrees with that assessment. His theory is that the universe undergoes an indefinite series of big bangs without any intermediate big crunches. As the universe ages, it becomes less and less organized. Black holes, meanwhile, convert more and more of its matter into radiation. The end result is a maximum state of entropy, in which the entire universe consists of a uniform state of radiation. At that point, the known laws of physics break down into a singularity (devoid of space-time) that results in another big bang. In other words, the universe evolves from one big bang to another without intermediate big crunches.<br /><br />To his credit, Penrose recognizes that there are some gaps in his theory. For one thing, there’s no evidence (so far) that black holes will inevitably convert all matter into radiation. For another, there’s no reason (yet) to think that a singularity must result in a big bang. But it’s interesting to find out that (apparently) there is at least some evidence in favor of the Penrose hypothesis. If the evidence holds up under scrutiny, maybe it will help put an end to all the string theory/multiverse nonsense that has dominated recent cosmology. One can only hope. In the meantime, thanks for the link. I was unaware of the (alleged) empirical evidence.<br /><br />I should emphasize, however, as you've already noted, that the success of the Penrose hypothesis would in no way constitute a refutation of classical apologetics. The question of why there’s something rather than nothing would still remain. An endless series of big bangs would be in no less need of explanation than one.JB in CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-43148284738949668432010-12-04T22:30:29.622-05:002010-12-04T22:30:29.622-05:00Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which th...Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which the universe is expanding is increasing. (Cosmologists postulate "dark energy" to "explain" this phenomenon.) So most cosmologists have abandoned the idea that the universe will end in a big crunch or that it will oscillate indefinitely between big bangs and big crunches. <br /><br />Penrose agrees with this assessment. His theory is that the universe undergoes an indefinite series of big bangs without any intermediate big crunches. As the universe ages, it becomes less and less organized. Black holes, meanwhile, convert more and more of its matter into radiation. The end result is a maximum state of entropy, in which the entire universe consists of a uniform state of radiation. At that point, the known laws of physics break down into a singularity (devoid of space-time) that results in another big bang. In other words, the universe evolves from one big bang to another without intermediate big crunches.<br /><br />To his credit, Penrose recognizes that there are some gaps in his theory. For one thing, there’s no evidence (so far) that black holes will eventually convert all matter into radiation. For another, there’s no reason (yet) to think that a singularity must result in a big bang. But it’s interesting to find out that (apparently) there is at least some evidence in favor of it. If the evidence holds up under scrutiny, maybe it will put an end to all the string theory/multiverse nonsense that has dominated recent cosmology. One can only hope. In the meantime, thanks for the link. <br /><br />I should also emphasize a point that you originally made: a refutation of classical big-bang cosmology would not entail a refutation of classical apologetics. The question of why there’s something rather than nothing would still remain, and Penrose—in spite of all his brilliance (and he truly is brilliant)—has said nothing about that particular question.JB in CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-60034108167953185632010-12-04T11:41:10.415-05:002010-12-04T11:41:10.415-05:00Your HS paper would depend on the amount of matter...Your HS paper would depend on the amount of matter in the universe and the rate of expansion, we would assume, and conventional physics presently says there's not nearly enough mass to effect a collapse. Here we have a variation based on a different observation, we think.<br /><br />Nevertheless, your point is well taken that any such hypothesis awaits verification through testing, if it is indeed capable of making testable predictions.Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNIDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04595651777890086293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15405788.post-78340217320284953572010-12-04T10:14:24.356-05:002010-12-04T10:14:24.356-05:00My belief is that most of these "scientific&q...My belief is that most of these "scientific" conjectures are just that, conjectures. Sure, there are some pretty smart people doing a lot of really difficult mathematical equations and then drawing conclusions from them, but knowledge of processes does not always equate to observable reality (see Mythbusters).<br /><br />I'm especially inclined to believe this because I posited in H.S. that if in fact the universe is expanding from a single point without outside forces working on it, then our current understanding of the laws of physics demand that the universe will eventually collapse on itself. That was 15 years ago. A few years ago a scientist (I believe he was Russian) came out with a paper that I assume does the math to make the same point. The foundation to the argument you are referring to.<br /><br />I'm not trying to say I'm a genius, just that these concepts aren't.Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06621976623887201054noreply@blogger.com