Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Universe started with hiss, not bang

  1. Jun 16, 2004 #1
    No idea if it's a scoop, seeing as it's dated to the 4th of June, but nevertheless, i haven't spotted it elsewhere around here (perhaps didn't bother looking hard enough :wink: ) and thought it was worth bringing up:


    So what do you guys think? perhaps another glammering feature to append to the increasing testbed of string theory?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 20, 2004 #2
    May I ask what this has to do with string theory? Just sounds like inflationary cosmology to me. Inflationary cosmology doesn't automatically imply anything about string theory does it?

    Perhaps you could explain the connection? :confused:
  4. Jun 20, 2004 #3
    Well, conventional wisdom, in form of the various theories dispersed throughout the high-energy physics community, postulates that the primordial universe, at it's birth, was "infested" with a bath of strings and certain theories (Ekpyrotic scenario for instance) posit that this flurry of strings were precisely the reason why three of the putative six or more dimensions were enlarged and seeded the roots of our universe.

    This theory originated from certain distinct formulations of string theory, has relations with the big bang, and thus, the "hissing" scoop was definetly something i deemed as informative, seeing as it could shed some light as to the true origin of our universe.
  5. Jun 20, 2004 #4
    All theories begin with similar postulates. We have to start with some postulate. The idea that the universe began as a bath of fundamental quons is a given in any particle physics theory. So I don't see how any experimental evidence to support such a postulate would favor any particular theory on what constitutes the nature of the fundamental particles.

    I'm not trying to be difficult. I believe that string theory has merit too. But to suggest that a hiss before the inflation of the big bang supports one theory over any another is a bit of a stretch for me.

    I personaly have never believed in the concept of point particles. I have always believe in an idea that particles are actually vibrations of some sort and that their vibrations determine their physical attributes. In other words, I have basically believed in something simliar to string theory all of my life, (Even before string theory was born). Unlike string theory though, I have always evisioned space being made up of pixels with multi-dimension shapes (something similar to Calabi-Yau cavities). I evisioned the vibrations moving from one pixel to another. So rather than having strings floating around in a space that is "beyond" space. I envision the vibrations moving from pixel to pixel much like an animation on a computer screen (only in three dimensions). My pixels, of course, would have more than three dimension just like strings supposely have. Only my extra dimensions aren't spatial.

    In any case, I postulate that my early universe began as a bath of vibrating pixels too - Hissssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

    So I could use the early hiss to support my theory just as easily.

    Do you see how an early hiss doesn't really point to string theory any more than it points to many other theories?

    Just about any theory on particle physics has to begin with a postulate of the existence of it's elementary constitutents. They could all hiss. :smile:

    I just think it would be pretty lame for any theory to grab onto an early hiss as an indication that it might be more correct than some other theory. To do that you'd have to show that other theories don't postulate a bath of their elementary constitutents. But I think that most theories of elementary particles would need to postulate this.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook