http://stardrive.org
In fact no conflict at all. Both complement each other.
On Oct 1, 2005, at 10:35 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
Yes, I already had this idea in 1973 as Saul-Paul Sirag can attest. I
think it's even on the 1973 tape with me and Puthoff & Targ. I will put
that tape on the WEB when I get a chance. This is a major theme in all 3
of my books now on http://amazon.com Robert Dickson Crane related this
idea to Islamic "Tauhid" BTW.
On Oct 1, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:
Here is the paper by Gott & Li:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712344
Can the Universe Create Itself?
Authors: J. Richard Gott, III, Li-Xin Li
Categories: astro-ph gr-qc
Comments: 48 pages, 8 figures
Journal-ref: Phys.Rev. D58 (1998) 023501
The question of first-cause has troubled philosophers and cosmologists
alike. Now that it is apparent that our universe began in a Big Bang
explosion, the question of what happened before the Big Bang arises.
Inflation seems like a very promising answer, but as Borde and Vilenkin
have shown, the inflationary state preceding the Big Bang must have had
a beginning also. Ultimately, the difficult question seems to be how to
make something out of nothing. This paper explores the idea that this is
the wrong question --- that that is not how the Universe got here.
Instead, we explore the idea of whether there is anything in the laws of
physics that would prevent the Universe from creating itself. Because
spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity
allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus,
tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may
eventually encounter a region of CTCs giving no first-cause. This region
of CTCs, may well be over by now (being bounded toward the future by a
Cauchy horizon). We illustrate that such models --- with CTCs --- are
not necessarily inconsistent by demonstrating self-consistent vacuums
for Misner space and a multiply connected de Sitter space in which the
renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not diverge as one approaches
the Cauchy horizon and solves Einstein's equations. We show such a
Universe can be classically stable and self-consistent if and only if
the potentials are retarded, giving a natural explanation of the arrow
of time. Some specific scenarios (out of many possible ones) for this
type of model are described. For example: an inflationary universe gives
rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself.
Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own
mother.
Gary S Bekkum
Starstream Research
P.O. Box 1144
Maple Grove, MN 55311-6144
(763) 439-0719
garysbekkum@gmail.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Sarfatti
To: caryn anscomb
Cc: Gary S Bekkum / SSR ; Dan Smith ; Katia ; S-P Sirag ; Colin Bennett
; Cynthia Tsai
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: NEW Tegmark - How did it all begin?
Thanks for reference.
Intelligent Design FROM the Future does not contradict Darwinian
Evolution. They work together.
This is all completely explained in my 3 books - it's a self consistent
loop in time. I already talked about this in 1973. Saul-Paul Sirag wrote
an opera about it in 1974. This is old stuff. No mystery here. Dan Smith
tries to mystify all this with Telos, Eschaton. Gott has a book on this
from Princeton Time Travel. I already had Gott's idea decades before him.
On Oct 1, 2005, at 7:24 AM, caryn anscomb wrote:
Tegmark: How Did It All Begin?
P6 of 6
‘Q: Where does the observed matter come from?
A: Inflation can produce it all from almost nothing.’
At the risk of getting my knuckles rapped, I think the fundamental
question in relation to intelligent design, posed to the physicist,
might be: What is the ‘almost nothing’ and what gave the ‘almost
nothing’ it’s marching orders in the very first instance?
(I say very first instance in consideration of the ‘self-replicating
inflationary universe theory’). It appears that all theories can be
reduced to what must be viewed as a first event, even when we consider
something like ‘backward causation’ plausible?
Caryn.
Gary S Bekkum / SSR <garysbekkum@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI 6 page summary paper for your list members, they really need to
get up to speed :-)
rom: Max Tegmark [view email]
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:57:30 GMT (576kb)
How did it all begin?
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508429
Authors: Max Tegmark
Categories: astro-ph
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.
Full-text: PostScript, PDF, or Other formats
Gary S Bekkum
Starstream Research
P.O. Box 1144
Maple Grove, MN 55311-6144
(763) 439-0719
garysbekkum@gmail.com
.
|
