

pre-Big-Bang activity evidence - ccarpenterg
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706

======
terra_t
I think we're going to see a lot of papers like this. In a quantum gravity
universe, we know there's no singularity at the big bang. Therefore,
scientists are going to be looking through ways that we can see through to the
other side of the big bang.

Even if their particular universe model isn't correct, there must be other
models in which similar phenomena could occur. Interesting stuff.

------
davidj
Basically what I understand is they are saying "Hey, we're observing things
that don't make sense to the big bang theory, so maybe there were multiple big
bangs and then maybe if there were multiple big bangs there could be an
infinite amount of them.. and what we are observing is the previous big bang's
light. So we jumbled a bunch of numbers showing this is possible." But the
paper fails to deal with the fact that, yes, if there were multiple big bangs,
then maybe the "big" bang isn't really the significant big event everybody has
it thought out to be -- there wasn't just one event that created everything.
Although it sounds great. So they are just making excuses to keep the big bang
theory alive and should instead just say 'we don't know what created the
universe' and abandon the 'big bang' theory all together. There own paper
disproves the entire big bang theory.

~~~
troymc
Their paper doesn't "disprove the entire big bang theory."

It does find some problems with the prevailing inflationary model (in which a
short period of rapid inflation follows the big bang). Their model gives
another way to solve the problems that the inflationary model solved. Other
models might also work. And so science proceeds...

~~~
davidj
I guess I should had made it more clear in my post. Let me try again; if the
current theory is stated as such "there once was nothing, and then there was
one big bang that created everything in the universe and this was absolutely a
single event", and then in the paper they conclude, "oh, wait, there were
multiple events", then by extension the theory that everything was a single
event -- called the big bang theory -- is no longer a true. No single event,
no big bang theory. But no, they decided to interpret the data to fit around
the conclusion of the big bang by using fancy names. You can't call something
a 'single event' and have it both a 'single event' and 'multiple event' at the
same time. It either was a single event or it wasn't! I'm not sure if I could
be more clearer. Where is it in my logic can you show me that I am wrong?

~~~
natch
Maybe they weren't talking about multiple simultaneous events (although the
concept of time doesn't really apply anyway) but more about prior (in the
sense of one having an influence on the other) events that had impact on the
initial conditions for our current universe's big bang.

------
mfukar
"hey, look, my idea has an internal logical consistencyyy.."

~~~
troymc
Apparently their idea also has external consistency with measurements.

Gurzadyan and Penrose are saying that there is observational evidence for a
particular cosmological model known as Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC).
Specifically, the evidence comes from measurements gathered by the Wilkinson
Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) (a satellite) and Boomerang '98 (a balloon
flight above Antarctica in 1998, which also measured temperature fluctuations
in the cosmic microwave background).

Specifically, they claim to see the signatures of supermassive black hole
encounters in the aeon prior to the Big Bang - these show up as families of
concentric circles over which the temperature variance is anomalously low in
the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Of course, other cosmological models might also be consistent with the
measurements they cite.

~~~
mfukar
The only consistency that exists with measurements is that theories are
formulated as a potential interpretation of them.

So, back to my original hypothesis..

------
jey
a) This is just a post on the arxiv. Pretty much anyone can submit any crap to
it. It's not peer reviewed.

b) It's not even clear that Roger Penrose really collaborated on it. The other
guy could have just listed Penrose as a coauthor.

~~~
troymc
The fact is, the arXiv is seen as a legitimate and respectable place for
scientists to post preprints.

V.G. Gurzadyan is well-known in the physics community and wouldn't risk his
reputation by posting papers with phony coauthors.

Peer review and reputation are nice, but the acid test of any scientific model
is whether it works. For example, is the model consistent with known
observations, and does it make good predictions?

~~~
jey
Right, but the problem is that us _non-experts_ can't tell whether something
posted on the arXiv holds water or not. Being posted on the arXiv carries very
little signal.

Don't get me wrong: I love the arXiv and use it regularly. Long papers can be
posted there, get disseminated quickly, and can be downloaded freely. The
problem I have is that many people think anything on the arXiv is
automatically true -- but there's lots of cranks posting proofs of P ?= NP and
etc.

Yes, the acid test is obviously whether or not it works, but that's why we
need to wait for the experts to figure it out and vet it.

