 |
|
The first human sex change took place in 1950 when Danish doctor Christian Hamburger operated on New Yorker George Jargensen, who became Christine Jargensen. |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory
Posted on Sunday, June 29, 2008 (CDT) by Isis
 Prof Stephen Hawking has come up with a new idea to explain why the Big Bang of creation led to the vast cosmos that we can see today. Astronomers can deduce that the early universe expanded at a mind-boggling rate because regions separated by vast distances have similar background temperatures. They have proposed a process of rapid expansion of neighbouring regions, with similar cosmic properties, to explain this growth spurt which they call inflation.
But that left a deeper mystery: why did inflation occur in the first place? Now New Scientist reports that an answer has been proposed by Prof Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University, working with Prof Thomas Hertog of the Astroparticle and Cosmology Laboratory in Paris.
Prof Hawking is best known for his attempts to combine theories of the very small, quantum theory, and that of gravity and the very big, general relativity, into a new theory, called quantum gravity. Quantum mechanics is awash with strange ideas and can shed new light on inflation, which came in the wake of when the universe itself was around the size of an atom.
By quantum
lore, when a particle of light travels from A to B, it does not take
one path but explores every one simultaneously, with the more direct
routes being used more heavily.
This is called a sum over histories and Prof Hawking and Prof Hertog propose the same thing for the cosmos.
In this theory, the early
universe can be described by a mathematical object called a wave
function and, in a similar way to the light particle, the team proposed
two years ago that this means that there was no unique origin to the
cosmos: instead the wave function of the universe embraced a multitude
of means to develop.
This is very counter
intuitive: they argued the universe began in just about every way
imaginable (and perhaps even some that are not). Out of this profusion
of beginnings, like a blend of a God’s eye view of every conceivable
kind of creation, the vast majority of the baby universes withered away
to leave the mature cosmos that we can see today.
But, like any new idea,
there were problems. The professors found that they could not explain
the rapid expansion - inflation - of the universe, evidence of which is
left behind all around us in what is called the cosmic microwave
background, in effect the echo of the big bang, a relic of creation
that can be measured with experiments on balloons and on space probes.
Now, in a paper in Physical
Review Letters with Prof James Hartle of the University of California,
Santa Barbara, they realised that their earlier estimates of inflation
were wrong because they had not fully thought through the connection
between, on the one hand, their theoretical predictions and, on the
other, our observations of the echo.
At first, they found that
the most probable history of the cosmos had only undergone "a little
bit of inflation at the beginning, contradicting the observations,"
said Prof Hertog. Now, after a correction to take account of how the
data we have on inflation is based on only a view of a limited volume
of the universe, they find that the wave function does indeed predict a
long period of inflation.
"This proposal, with volume
weighting, can explain why the universe inflated," Prof Hawking tells
New Scientist. By taking into account that we have a parochial view of
the cosmos, the team has come up with a radical new take on cosmology.
Most models of the universe
are bottom-up, that is, you start from well-defined initial conditions
of the Big Bang and work forward. However, Prof Hertog and Prof Hawking
say that we do not and cannot know the initial conditions present at
the beginning of the universe. Instead, we only know the final state -
the one we are in now.
Their idea is therefore to
start with the conditions we observe today - like the fact that at
large scales one does not need to adopt quantum lore to explain how the
universe (it behaves classically, as scientists say) - and work
backwards in time to determine what the initial conditions might have
looked like.
In this way, they argue the
universe did not have just one unique beginning and history but a
multitude of different ones and that it has experienced them all.
The new theory is also
attractive because it fits in with string theory - the most popular
candidate for a "theory of everything."
String theory allows the
existence of an" unimaginable multitude of different types of universes
in addition to our own," but it does not provide a selection criterion
among these and hence no explanation for why our universe is, the way
it is", says Prof Hertog.
"For this, one needs a theory of the wave function of the universe."
And now the world of
cosmology has one. The next step is to find specific predictions that
can be put to the test, to validate this new view of how the cosmos
came into being.
Copyright: Telegraph
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory
by Rareheart on Sunday, June 29, 2008 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message) | There are many "new" ideas, that aren't really new. The term new, as used in this article, simply means that it is accepted by mainstream science at this point. The problem I see is this:
There are many concepts out there that are not accepted by mainstream science because they go against it...they break the rules that have been established thus far...rules, that in my humble opinion (discovered through much research), are founded on improper logic. For instance, dark matter is a huge puzzle right now. They "know" there is a vast amount of 'material' that we only know exists through its effect on surrounding visible objects. In order to keep the math flowing, they add "dark matter" to the equations. Adding another unknown variable to the mix is not very logical, by my way of understanding.
Instead, go in the opposite direction for a moment. Imagine that the wave function never actually collapses into a point particle, it only appears so when these waves slow down and aggregate due to being confined in tight quarters. The waves become so dense they appear as particles to our measuring devices...yet they never actually lose their wave properties...only appear so.
In other words, matter is an artifact of our senses...of course mainstream science won't go there...too much to give up...giving up matter itself.
Check out www.spaceandmotion.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory
by drdave616 on Sunday, June 29, 2008 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Excellent article! Also a great response from Rareheart. I would like to see this commented on by Leonard Susskind, Father of String Theory! I will post him fortwith! Doc |
Re: Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory (Score: 1)
by on Monday, July 07, 2008 (CDT)
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.Greenspeech.org | Dr Dave,
We've discussed my GUT feeling about long-wave particles and ether theory. Does Hawkins really re-propose ether theory? I never thought it was un-proposed!
Einstien and Newton proposed ether theories. Einstein's proposal was apparently disregarded after a "thought experiement" in which a laser beam was directed at a mirror on Mars and the return beam showed no doppler shift, thus proving that ether does not interfere with light travel, a nice idea but never proven or corroborated physically. At that point, Popular Science went on to expound upon the miracles of Hydrogen Fusion Bombs rather than space travel through ether.
This all happened before Sputnik was launched (the first satellite sent into Earth orbit in 1952?). Einstein died in 1955, I think. A bit inconsistent on the part of Popular Science: Mars before Russian space flight in the local atmosphere!
The opposition to ether theory is therefore thoughtful, nonetheless on the part of Popular Science :)
I guess that moon base thingy is still going to happen around 2025 as well? Keep an eye on popular science for Popular updates, right?!? |
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
