Science question:  Is the universe as a hologram currently or still a viable theory? Debunked?
488158
The universe is but a gas bubble in somebody's glass of beer, expanding as it rises, and destined to either become froth, or digested on its way to becoming a different kind of gas bubble.\n\nI think about this every time I pour a cold one.
983642
Actually, they know it isn't infinite.\n\n\nThe findings are mostly thanks to hubbles big idea and discovery, but they can now confirm that indeed the visible universe is finite thanks to WMAP.\n\n\n\nAs for the possiblity of space outside of the visible universe...we have no idea.
1074557
Is the Big Bang Theory still as widely accepted in the scientific world? Or is it losing ground to other theories?\n\nThe Big Bang Theory indicates that we live in an ever-expanding universe, moving away from every other universe on the fabric of space-time.  Although some scientists are careful to point out that “Andromeda, our nearest large galactic neighbor, is actually moving toward us, not away. Such exceptions arise because Hubble's law describes only the average behavior of galaxies (Scientific American March 2005).”\n\nBelief in One Theory\n\nSo many take the position that “my idea is all correct and your idea is all wrong.”  These ideas can be labeled as theories, doctrines, or whatever; they challenge us to examine our ideas and the views of others.  If we are insecure, we prefer to dismiss the viewpoints of others rather than examine our own.  However, if we are emotionally mature, we tend to be willing to review our own position and seek the merit in the perspective of others.  Such emotional maturity was once defined as “I am what I am, nothing better, nothing worse, and I find it good.”  This non-competitive stance is essential for open-minded pursuit of truth and knowledge.\n\nAny one who knows about blueprints, mechanical drafting, or architecture understands that it takes at least 3 different viewpoints to be able to accurately understand and recreate anything.  The most commonly used are the top, side, and front views.  For example, a table from the top view is a long and wide rectangle.  From the front view it is narrow and long.   From the side view it is narrow and short.  It is fruitless to argue that any one of these perspectives is false.\n\nIn layman’s terms, we might say that the sky is blue.  Someone else that it is orange.  In comprehensive reality, we can admit that it is sometimes blue and sometimes orange; indeed, sometimes it can be both at the same time.\n\nScientists may argue that light consists of waves, not particles.  Other scientists might insist that light is made of particles, not waves.  However, many modern scientists are beginning to embrace the necessity of models that include both these concepts.  Moreover, the characteristics of something do not have to be restricted to only 2 or 3 substantiated theories or viewpoints; a deep understanding of things may involve a panoramic examination of multiple views, like a spinning and swerving car in a television commercial.\n\nWith that foundation, let us examine the Big Bang Theory, in relation to other current theories of cosmology.  Let me point out the relative merits of each position briefly and how they could possibly harmonize.\n\nBig Bang\n\nThe Big Bang Theory remains the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe.  The red shift of light from distant nebulas proves that everything is moving away from a starting point, an expanding universe.  The fact that there is a relationship between these celestial objects speed and their distance reinforces their common origin.  If true, there should be cosmic background radiation, and there is.  Physics tends to support the details of the theory including the cooling that may have lead to the sequential creation of matter and antimatter particles, including quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos and photons.  Similarly, the relative properties of the basic elements tend to support their sequential development, including deuterium (heavy hydrogen), tritium and helium.  The ratio of one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen is a constant in the universe today.\n\nUnresolved problems with this theory are the age of the universe and the basis on a “singularity” (an event which defies current rules of physics).   Also, while the Big Bang Theory defines an event of creation, it does not define what caused it to happen.\n\nThe Big Crunch\n\nIf the total gravitational force of all matter is high enough, it would slow the expansion of the
736038
Would you like to see a real picture that was recently made of the beginning of the Universe?\n\nhttp://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/03/0217/
486183
I find it to be quite fascinating.  Although mind-bending as well (11 dimensions - my brain hurts just thinking about it).  I don't know if it is correct or not (well, no one knows for sure), but it seems to have potential, particularly with resolving the Relativity/Quantum Physics battle.
4816
Okay, so you know how quantum physics shows us that all points in space, all bits of matter are at any moment both a particle and a wave.  And Einstein's special theory of relativity shows us that all light is made of waves.  And these two theories combine in interesting ways, but don't completely gel.  For decades physicists have been struggling to reconcile the two theories, but they have been unable to do so effectively.  Something was always holding them back, basically because the universe seems to be holding more energy than there is space in the points of known mass.  This made scientists wonder where all the energy was.  And then they discovered, that the space in between the atoms was itself teeming with life.  And the life that lives at the bottom of all matter, inside the shell of the tiniest waves of photons, or quanta, is a strange world of simultaneously vibrating strings.  And those strings of multi-demensional vibrating pulsating energy play in a kind of metaphysical choir, creating all the intricacies of mass and energy in the universe, as if these tiny little strings were conductors conducting a vast symphony, only they were conducting that symphony with the conductors of all the other symphonies of the atoms they were orchestrating with.  And those collections of atoms and molecules and other interesting bits were actually being played by an army of conductors conducting simultaneously with an entire legion of instruments singing and strumming away.\n\nString theory is mind-bogglingly wild, because it's so advanced.  It took PBS three hours to explain it completely, and I was still lost.  Only when I completed the book about the show's research did I have a deeper grasp of it.  Basically you just need to know that these little strings that vibrate in 6, up to 10 dimensions (depending on whose theory applies to that particular "particle" - I told you, it's mind-blowing)  and how they vibrate impacts what manifests on the level of perceptible reality.\n\nWhat's so incredible about this is that science is finally catching up to philosophy.  The Middle Way, or what Huxley called the Perennial Philosophy, has always told us that the perception of life is merely the perception of imperceptible changes on a fundamental and/or spiritual nature, and the manifestation of those changes in the world that we see around us.  In many traditional cultures, those changes are manipulated by otherworldy figures, gods, angels and the like, which is outside the scope of scientists to discern, but in today's physics, the wall between the reality we see and the reality that is real is paper-thin.  Scientists are beginning to discover that everything truly is everything, and once they can prove it, life can get a whole lot more sane, because folks will have realized that what we are today is what we were twenty thousand years ago, we are one indescribable circle trailing itslef through time, perhaps even creating subtle vibrations that resonate with other vibrating universes that themselves are creating a reality in a world far, far different than this one, beyond all perceptible consciousness.  Perhaps, there may even be a heaven, in which all this is taking place and yet life is going on and on and on, without fear or violence or pain.\n\nEnjoy your continuing discovery of the details behind string theory.  It truly is a fascinating subject.
895275
I read in Time a few years back that in an article, scientists explained a theory that universes connect as a chain, and our Universe- is among many. The idea was quite something to read and of course the diagrams and images they used to portray this thing out was all very fascinating to say the least. It was a rational idea even to me and considering what we found with a pin tip portion of the night sky magnified 1,300 times....hundreds of thousands of Galaxy's all clustered in an array that almost seemed like you are looking at it all through a cylinder. \nSo there is no real way to know for certain, but there could be millions of them...and a chain of universes makes rational sense.
21045
It depends on your opinion on how the universe works. There are many different theories, but I know of none that sugest what the "material" would be for the boundary of the universe. I am a quantum mechanist, thoguh I'm only in middle school, so I will not go off on M-theory and stuff. But, if I were you, I would read up on some of the theories and equations to form your hypothesis. My sugestion is that the universe is expanding at light speed because it is the light that expands the universe. Let me explain; if something, including light, tries to travel to the "boundary" of the universe it would continue forever or until it is blocked. (Because light is affected by gravity, I think it would eventually come to a stop, as in a frozen star, or black hole.) So, there is a boundary, but it always expands as objects try to reach it.
926855
The way to measure it is to measure the redshift of galaxies at different distances. Are they starting to slow down, or not? But like was said above, I'm not going to worry about it. Not that cosmology isn't a fun thing to study, but as far as applications it's just about there with Abstract Art. I would say let's concentrate on applied physics, earth and solar science first, develop some new technologies, maybe colonize Mars, some other solar systems, or a good fraction of the galaxy and then we can worry about the fate of the universe when we have more tools, power and understanding to explore or do something about it. It's noble and admirable, but might be like a caveman pondering the lifespan of the sun - that large bright circle that goes around the flat earth. Occasionally skipping ahead is rewarded - most times it's a shot in the dark.
793848
This is serious:\n\n1. It's up to him to prove it is shrinking, not up to you to prove it isn't.  He, after all, is the one who supports the hypothesis he read on the internet.  Just say "Prove it".  \n\n2. You gave the source of his information as "the internet".  That's too vague.  Where on the interent?  What web site?  What "expert(s)" in what fields(s)?  What proof did the internet article(s) present in support of the hypothesis?  How can anyone support or deny those proofs if we don't know what they are?\n\n2. What is meant by "getting smaller"?  As you can see from the other responses, different people have different ideas about which quantity is decreasing.  One person, who understands nothing about Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity, thought the mass was "getting smaller".  Another thought you meant the size, as in the diameter and/or volume.  Another seemed to think the entire universe is involved in the shrinkage.\n\nThe problem here is not so much your friend's outlandish claim as your inability to ask a critical question.
1137564
In physical sciences there is no such thing as a proven theory. The best thing a theory can do, is to undergo innumerable tests of which not a single one contradicts it (example: the second law of thermodynamics). Then we speak of it as a reality.\n\nI'm far away from being an expert, but since there are so many different "Big bang theories"  (cosed universe, open universe...) I would say, that none is very close to being "proven" (because the appropriate experiments are not yet possible or found). \n\nHowever I think that the idea of an early universe which was very hot and dense (one of the model's crucial ideas) is widely accepted. Facts pointing in that direction are the observations of  redshifts by HubbleSpaceTeescope or the detection of an isotropic cosmic microwave background (in it's own rest-frame!)
47001
Other pages in this Astrophysics/Cosmology section are: \n\nGravitational Entropy (June '98) \nA Debate on Open Inflation (November '98). The lecture is saved as a postscript document. \nQuantum Cosmology, M-theory and the Anthropic Principle (January '99). \nRotation, Nut Charge and Anti de Sitter Space (February '99). \nLinks \n\nHome \n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nPhysics Colloquiums - Inflation: An Open and Shut Case (April '98).\nSlides and audio for this talk can be downloaded from the ITP at UCSB.\n\nThis talk will be based on joint work with Neil Turok, at Cambridge. Neil has always been interested in what might be called, alternative cosmology. He pushed the idea that topological defects like cosmic strings or textures, were the origin of the large scale structure of the universe. And he was a proponent of what is called, open inflation. This is the idea that the universe is infinitely large, and of low density, despite having been through a period of exponential expansion, in the very early stages. My opinion was, that these were all nice ideas, but that nature probably hadn't chosen the use any of them. I included open inflation in that list, because I believed strongly that the universe came into being, at a finite size, and I felt that implied that the universe now, was still of finite size, or closed. However, after Neil gave a seminar on open inflation in Cambridge, we got talking. We realized it was possible for the universe to come into existence, at a finite size, but nevertheless, be either a finite, or an infinitely large universe now. My talk will be about this idea, and new developments that have occur since then. One of these, which is so recent that it is not yet fully worked out, is that it seems there is an observational signature, of the kind of inflation Neil and I are proposing. The present measurements are not sensitive enough to see this effect, but it should be possible to test for it, in the observations the Planck satellite will make.\n\nAnother recent development, is that observations of supernovas, have suggested that the universe may have a small cosmological constant, at the present time. Even before these observations, Neil and I had realized that if there was a four form gauge field, one could invoke anthropic arguments to make it cancel the cosmological constant, that one would expect from symmetry breaking. But the anthropic argument would not require it to cancel exactly. So there could be a small residual cosmological constant. This is exciting. I shall describe the observational evidence later.\n\nAs you probably know, the universe is remarkably isotropic on a large scale. That is to say, it looks the same in all directions, if one goes beyond such local irregularities as the Milky Way, and the Local Group of galaxies. By far the most accurate measurement of the isotropy of the universe, is the faint background of microwave radiation, first discovered in 1965. At the present time at least, the universe is transparant to microwaves, in directions out of the plane of our galaxy. Thus the microwave background, must have propagated to us, from distances of the order of the Hubble radius, or greater. It should therefore give a sensitive measurement, of any anisotropy in the universe.\n\nThe remarkable fact is, that the microwave background is the same in every direction, to a high degree of accuracy. It wasn't until 1982, that differences between different directions were detected, at the level of one part in a thousand, with a dipole pattern on the sky. However, this could be interpreted as a consequence of our galaxy's motion through the universe, which blue shifted the microwave radiation in one direction, and red shifted it in the opposite direction. It need not represent any intrinsic anisotropy in the universe.\n\nIt was not until 1992, that tiny fluctuations on angular scales of 10 degrees, were
436621
yeah, i guess it could wrack almost anyone's brain.  spacetime is not infinite.  it is finite yet has no edge.  it may be something like the two dimensional surface of a sphere.  nothing inside or outside the sphere exists for the surface.  nothing exists outside the universe or before the universe.  i have something else for you to think about.  the universe is 13.7 billion years old, yet we can observe parts of the universe that are about 46 billion lightyears away.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang\nhttp://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html\nhttp://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147
854866
Everything we know about, everything we can see, behaves as if 13.7 billion years ago it was a dense, hot plasma that has been expanding and cooling ever since.  That's the Big Bang theory, and there is a tremendous amount of overlapping, detailed evidence to show that it's correct.  The Big Bang theory being wrong is about as likely, and makes about as much sense, as the idea that a Sun-centered solar system is wrong.  Essentially all of modern astronomy depends on the Big Bang to make sense.  The main observations are:\n\n1) The redshift of more distant galaxies is larger than that of nearby galaxies.\n\n2) Quasars and radio sources are seen to evolve.  There were many quasars in the past, now there are almost none.\n\n3) The amounts of the light elements Deuterium and Hydrogen make sense in the context of neucleosynthesis in the Big Bang.\n\n4) The Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation is as predicted by the Big Bang theory, both in magnitude and in the details of its anisotropy in amplitude and polarization.\n\n5) All stars and galaxies evolve as if that evolution were set into motion by the Big Bang.\n\n\nYour notion of mirages and crests makes no sense in the context of modern physics.  We do see some warpage of space, particularly gravitational lensing by clusters of galaxies, but the Cosmic Microwave Background is most certainly only 400,000 lightyears from our event horizon.\n\nMany current versions of the Big Bang involve a Universe that exists eternally in both the past and future.  Our Big Bang was not necessarily the beginning of the Universe.
1158544
This "nothing" is what we perceive without the laws of physics. Our universe is limited by the knowledge we have about it. Recent theories (the "M" theory) suggest that endless universes exist, and sometimes they even collide one into other. Probably, out there, beyond the boundaries of 12 billions light years, others dimensions, other plan of existence exist.
253987
I can't say i'm a supporter of either UNS / BigB theories coz both isn't convincing enough to me. Your point here is exactly why i don't believe in UNS, as for BigB, yes your argument does suggest that everything starts from a singularity.. then what is that singularity? Can universe be considered started because of the big bang then? or was that singularity was actually been part of the universe all along? if you think from here further.. don't you think UNS sounds more logical?\n\nall and all.. they're all theories, and believes.. just like we can't prove the theories about Multiverse.
257312
All of this is nothing more than assertions with no evidence to back them up.\n\n"Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models."\n\nWrong. For the simplest refutation of this claim, look up "cosmic redshift".\n\n"The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball."\n\nWhat fireball? Anyhow, this is dead wrong. There aren't enough stars to heat the entire universe to 3 Kelvins, and the emission band is all wrong.\n\n"Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work."\n\nFunny, becuase they've been used to make very successful predictions.\n\n"The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years."\n\nThis is simply an assertion. I would like to see the math to back this up, because none of the physicists or astrophysicists I know agree with this.\n\n"The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely."\n\nQuasars have a relatively short lifespan, which means they are all about the same age, and they are all over 5 billion years old, meaning that they have very large redshifts. That means it's not unlikely at all.\n\n"The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe."\n\nThat was true at one time, until they got a better value for Hubble's constant. This revised the age of the clusters down to a realistic value.\n\n"The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform."\n\nActually, the motions are exactly what are predicted by the Big Bang.\n\n"Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe."\n\nSo? We have several independant techniques by which we have verified the existence of dark matter. We just don't know how to study it yet.\n\n"The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars."\n\nI had to look this one up, so this is quoted from the source I posted below: Recent pictures from the Hubble Deep Field have revealed galaxies when they were forming – over 15 billion years ago. The light that is reaching us now is 15 billion years old, and, as such, shows no evidence of evolution, since we are looking back in time, and can see even before true galaxies were formed. Quasars are formed when two galaxies collide and their combined gases ignite at the center of one of the galaxies. Since galaxy collisions were much more common at the beginning of the universe, most quasars were formed then. Since they burn so intensely, they do not burn for long. When we look at the universe we see quasars only at distances equivalent to less than 50% of the age of the universe, back to about 10% of the age of the universe. We don’t see quasars older than 50% of the age of the universe, because after that time, they ceased to exist (we only see them now because of the time it took the light to reach us). Likewise, we don’t see quasars earlier than 10% of the current age of the universe, because galaxies had not completely formed before that time. Therefore, we would expect to see protogalaxies and newly formed galaxies with redshifts greater than those of quasars. The result is not inconsistent with Big Bang cosmology, but is, in fact, predicted by it."\n\n"If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 105