BookTalk.org
https://www.booktalk.org/

First evidence of other universes that exist alongside our own after scientists spot 'cosmic bruises
https://www.booktalk.org/first-evidence-of-other-universes-that-exist-alongside-our-own-after-scientists-spot-cosmic-bruises-t9892.html
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Jim Watters [ Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:07 am ]
Post subject:  First evidence of other universes that exist alongside our own after scientists spot 'cosmic bruises

First evidence of other universes that exist alongside our own after scientists spot 'cosmic bruises'

Scientists say that they have found evidence that our universe was 'jostled' by other parallel universes in the distant past.

The incredible claim emerged after they studied patterns in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) – the after-effects of the Big Bang.

They say they may have found evidence that four circular patterns found in the CMB are 'cosmic bruises' where our universe has crashed into other universes at least four times.

More...

Author:  Chris OConnor [ Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: First evidence of other universes that exist alongside our own after scientists spot 'cosmic bruises

I have a hard enough time believing or accepting the Big Bang theory. But this multiple universe colliding stuff seems so far-fetched to me. Yet I will refrain from forming a rigid opinion as I can deal with there being unknowns. I'll simply admit to being a skeptic.

Author:  Jim Watters [ Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: First evidence of other universes that exist alongside our own after scientists spot 'cosmic bruises

I'm thinking there might only be one alternate Universe made out of antimatter that quickly separated from our matter Universe. It may contain laws of physics different from ours and perhaps has a different number of dimensions. Heaven or Hell? :D

Author:  Dexter [ Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: First evidence of other universes that exist alongside our own after scientists spot 'cosmic bruises

The article says "A number of cosmologists have already written in response to the paper that it is too easy to jump to conclusions about what can be seen in the CMB."

I wouldn't have a clue of how to interpret such evidence. With such an extraordinary claim, I wish the journalist had tried to get a more detailed comment from other scientists as to what else it might be, and how speculative this is. I suspect that everyone, including the scientists, likes to spin a good story about it. We'll see if it holds up.

Quote:
If the earlier CMB findings by Penrose are any indicator, proving or disproving these sorts of claims rooted in WMAP data is extremely difficult. Fortunately, as Tech Review points out, the ongoing Planck mission should soon provide a much better picture of the CMB to astronomers, allowing them to hopefully prove or disprove some of these cosmological theories. Until then, the time is ripe to attribute statistical anomalies in the vast CMB data set to complex cosmological theories.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... background

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/