Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Scientists find evidence of a 'former universe'


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, godnodog said:

Wonder if any civilization (in theory( had achieving all possible scientiific achievements could survive this

I notice you, and probably everyone else, have the same problem that I do. 

If you use the news-page-link to read the article summary.  If you then decide to comment using that pages comment box, e.g.
https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/320907/scientists-find-evidence-of-a-former-universe
When your comment is transferred to this page's comment box 
parts of it get truncated.  :blink:

Maybe at the first location, there is a 120 character limit? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entropy is not necessarily reversed. It could just be that the net energy balance of each "cycle" gets less and less ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MyOtherAccount, I’ve never tried to comment there. And have never seen the issue mentioned, so I’m not sure many others do either, maybe that’s why newbies posts seem worse than they actually are sometimes?

Best to post it in the help/support section of the forum. 

As for OP, I’ve felt for a while that it seems logical that our universe will eventually contract back to a singularity before another Big Bang.

I don’t know why there would be remnants of black holes, maybe high enough energy that they somehow leave a splotch on the empty hollow canvas of the possible universe, for the next expansion to stumble upon.

Edited by Timothy
Typo/structure.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Entropy is not necessarily reversed. It could just be that the net energy balance of each "cycle" gets less and less ? 

It would have to be assuming the universe contracts into singularity. Thus entropy will decrease from whatever state it's prior to the Universe becoming a singularity as it will be zero at that point and even during contraction it will increase.

Or are we dismissing TBBT too along with entropy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MyOtherAccount said:

I notice you, and probably everyone else, have the same problem that I do. 

If you use the news-page-link to read the article summary.  If you then decide to comment using that pages comment box, e.g.
https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/320907/scientists-find-evidence-of-a-former-universe
When your comment is transferred to this page's comment box 
parts of it get truncated.  :blink:

Maybe at the first location, there is a 120 character limit? 

I dont understand your post, if you are refering to my post, well it is complete, I have noticed for over a year that the post bost in the news section hasnt been working properly for a very long time.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two quotes come to mind:

"Q: What will happen after the universe “collapses”?

A: The whole process will start over again! There will be another so-called Big Bang, and another universe will be born. It will expand and contract. And then it will do the same thing all over again. And again. And again. Forever and ever. World without end. This is the breathing in and breathing out of God."

(from Conversations with God, book 2)

and

"At the end of seventh density there is a movement into timelessness, and in this time of unknowing the heart of the Creator beats and another creation begins. This is the panoply of cosmology within which you are now experiencing the third of seven experiences or types of experience. And each of these densities represents a considerable length of your time."

(Quo, April 16, 2000)

Those of Ra do not speak in many details of the preceding and following octaves of creation. Among others, this might be relevant:

"Questioner: Are you saying then that there are an infinite number of octaves of densities one through eight?


Ra: I am Ra. We wish to establish that we are truly humble messengers of the Law of One. We can speak to you of our experiences and our understandings and teach/learn in limited ways. However, we cannot speak in firm knowledge of all the creations. We know only that they are infinite. We assume an infinite number of octaves. However, it has been impressed upon us by our own teachers that there is a mystery-clad unity of creation in which all consciousness periodically coalesces and again begins. Thus we can only say we assume an infinite progression though we understand it to be cyclical in nature and, as we have said, clad in mystery."

(from the Law of One, book 2)

Why are they talking about octaves?

"Ra: I am Ra. To the limits of our knowledge, which are narrow, the ways of the octave are without time; that is, there are seven densities in each creation infinitely."

(Law of One, book 4)

Now why any of this would or should show in the cosmic microwave background radiation, that is a good question. Makes me wonder, how exactly are the fruits of previous octaves "stored" or, if you like, remembered so they can be used here. The only thing that comes to mind would be the initial laws of physics being what they are and not slightly different, but would that be enough to "guarantee" the final evolution and emergence the right type of mind, or consciousnesses? Or does something else need adjusting along the way by "other" means? Where exactly does this phenomenon in the background radiation tie in? Food for thought for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rolci said:

"Q: What will happen after the universe “collapses”?

i've always wondered if the big bang is the result of the previous universe collapsing= a cycle that's been going on infinitely 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, as noted somewhere above, our Universe may have a "heartbeat" with respect to cyclic bang/crunch/bang.

If it goes into arrhythmia, we're screwed. :o

Also refered to as PUC (Premature Universal Contraction), this disease state can be managed by increasing or decreasing the amount of black-holes, per doctor's instruction. :lol:

Edited by pallidin
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't help showing this excellent vid to lighten us up just a tad...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a difficulty in understanding this is in translating the mathematics into common language. If any of us could understand the math, we might say, "Oh I see clearly now what you mean." .

A question might be, if radiation is uniform, how can a BB happen in one specific place? If this uniformity consists of photons and gravitons that have no mass and experience no time, then there is no size to this uniform distribution of radiation, so that "place" has no meaning. In effect, everywhere is the "place" for the Big Bang to occur. My thoughts.

Here's a 17 minute explanation by Sir Roger Penrose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2_6h15UCMg

And also his lecture, "Aeons Before the Big Bang."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YYWUIxGdl4

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to some, black holes gradually evaporate by a mechanism called  Hawking radiation.  For a solar mass size black hole it works out to ten to the power of 67  years.  

[ t = (M / M_sol)^3 * 2.099 * 10^67 yr ]

where [ M_sol ] is one solar mass, 2 × 1030 kg.

Clearly for a solar-mass hole the lifetime is essentially infinite. In fact, for a large enough hole (such that T < 2.726 Kelvin, or M > 0.75% the mass of the Earth) the hole will actually grow slightly by feeding on cosmic background radiation. Only when the universe cools below the hole's Hawking temperature will it start to shrink.

A big black hole like the one in the center of our galaxy with a billion solar masses would string that out to  10 to 94th power years wouldn't it?

That number is currently inconceivable to me,  Billions are difficult enough. At least it is less than a google 10 to 100th power.   Our universe is estimated to be only 10 to the 10 power old.  We are just starting out.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would enjoy knowing more about: 
 

1. Can we even discuss conflating the universe when we are unaware if dark energy exists and/or what it is and how it acts and reacts?

2. If we have mass-less particles traveling at the speed of light--expressed in a distance for a given amount of time--and doing so in the remains of a dimensional-less and timeless universe, how can these Hawking radiation photons remain in existence? There is no longer distance & time available.
3. I was under the impression that the Hawking-Einstein radiation is a byproduct triggered by a black-hole taking on more mass and energy. If that is true wouldn't an equilibrium eventually come about?
Edited by MyOtherAccount
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger Penrose, who has been involved in this, has quite fascinating theories, like the Penrose-Hameroff quantum mind Orch-OR theory, which could even imply that life after death is possible. Personally, I'm sceptical but it is fascinating theories anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Trenix said:

"See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. (Isaiah 65:17)

Then there shouldn't be evidence of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it is the same universe, with a first floor and a second floor and black holes are like elevator of sorts with a slow motion down button only, once they take everything down to the first floor and express elevator shoots it all back up to the second floor with a big bang and a whole new layout. 

 

Or black holes are like PacMan gobbling everything up until there is nothing left and the big bang is like resetting the video game and we are just part of some higher beings private arcade.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Then there shouldn't be evidence of it.

Not remembering something or not having it come to your mind, doesn't mean that there wouldn't be evidence of it existing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Trenix said:

Not remembering something or not having it come to your mind, doesn't mean that there wouldn't be evidence of it existing.

Recognizing the evidence means it did come to our mind.

Anyway the verse is talking about creating a new earth for God's chosen after this one. Nothing to do with what the topic is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rlyeh said:

Recognizing the evidence means it did come to our mind.

Anyway the verse is talking about creating a new earth for God's chosen after this one. Nothing to do with what the topic is about.

If you make the text appeal to your perspective, no one will change your mind. I just read it as it is, without having anything influence what I've read. The fact that it's written in text, shows that comes to mind, making it appear as if it's not literal, but you're free to believe what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, pallidin said:

This theory is functionally impossible if one presumes space/time is also recreated.

There simply would be nothing left to suggest prior existance... not a single trace; faint energy or otherwise.

Now, if space/time is not itself recreated each cycle, energetic remnants of a former universe is conceivable, I guess.

Damn... my head just exploded... will get back to you later...

I

They are not detecting the previous black holes but rather the Hawking radiation of the previous holes from billions of years of emitting all sorts of negative particles such as electrons while the positrons would fall back into it, which then goes into information paradox but It's like a balloon filling up with water then gradually spitting hydrogen and oxygen out without knowing if it was water that went in, it's location, etc yet that information is never destroyed hence the paradox, refer to Hawkings vs Susskind's. The holes size depending solely on it's mass and super sized holes emitt information slower than small ones. If there's no time or distance between anything, it starts to resemble the super compressed universe at the moment of the big bang and it starts all over again. The new universe contains none of the previous one's black holes at all but all the time it spent dissolving itself leaves a mark made in the background radiation frequencies of space and can survive the death of a universe.

Detecting that mark has been an idea floating around for years. It's nice to see someone finally found a mark, at least it makes the idea of a CCC not totally wrong however there is still a lot of criticism from other physicists so he is basically pushing this forward without the approval of the scientific community which as a scientist is requried to have peer reviewed agreement for the public to take it seriously. So take all this with a grain of salt since the article posted was written very poorly, well actually all the articles here are, lol.  Also interesting to note, Penrose was also the guy that co developed the quantum consciousness hypothesis along with Dr. Hammeroff which of course faces criticism from the neurological communities.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I don't understand a word of any of this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NightScreams said:

They are not detecting the previous black holes but rather the Hawking radiation of the previous holes from billions of years of emitting all sorts of negative particles such as electrons while the positrons would fall back into it, which then goes into information paradox but It's like a balloon filling up with water then gradually spitting hydrogen and oxygen out without knowing if it was water that went in, it's location, etc yet that information is never destroyed hence the paradox, refer to Hawkings vs Susskind's. The holes size depending solely on it's mass and super sized holes emitt information slower than small ones. If there's no time or distance between anything, it starts to resemble the super compressed universe at the moment of the big bang and it starts all over again. The new universe contains none of the previous one's black holes at all but all the time it spent dissolving itself leaves a mark made in the background radiation frequencies of space and can survive the death of a universe.

Detecting that mark has been an idea floating around for years. It's nice to see someone finally found a mark, at least it makes the idea of a CCC not totally wrong however there is still a lot of criticism from other physicists so he is basically pushing this forward without the approval of the scientific community which as a scientist is requried to have peer reviewed agreement for the public to take it seriously. So take all this with a grain of salt since the article posted was written very poorly, well actually all the articles here are, lol.  Also interesting to note, Penrose was also the guy that co developed the quantum consciousness hypothesis along with Dr. Hammeroff which of course faces criticism from the neurological communities.

 

 

I just read the paper today earlier, it's pretty out there. I think only mathematician's are going to understand it fully, as a physicist I can say I'm sorry I read it carefully cause it made me feel a bit thick at times.. The paper is well written. Needs to be read a number of times.

But it makes a lot of assumptions, particularly dismissing/omitting entropy. There idea of all black holes might be 'ghosts' is kinda out there too. Like how are we supposed to to distinguish between the two( a ghost one and a real one)? The paper is available free if people are interested. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.01740.pdf

It's a link to a PDF, not a website. Again I think think the experimental results are noise. But I'd love to be proven wrong.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my mind, beside the problem with entropy, why wouldn't this state of random radiation (photons) just continue? This would be a state of thermodynamic equilibrium of maximum entropy. How does this mas-less, time-less state configure itself into a BB? 

The only thing I can think of is, if there exists no time and therefore no distance or space, there is no measure of size and therefore no specific 'place', a BB would not need any specific location to begin (whatever the trigger for the BB to commence would be, if a trigger is needed). Perhaps this state would automatically become a BB for some reason I don't understand.

My other thought is, this state would be infinite in some sense. If the shape of the universe is flat and therefore infinite in extent, it would have to begin as infinite. It's origin would have to be infinite. In other words, the universe was infinite in scope at the moment of the BB. 

My reasoning is, any expanding finite state cannot become infinite in extent, as it would always have some finite size that is expanding. It would always have some boundary that is expanding. 

Any infinite state must already be infinite from its very 'beginning'. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2018 at 7:50 AM, Trenix said:

"See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. (Isaiah 65:17)

It's amazing to me that you just pulled that off the top of your head. 

What a great memory you have. 

Nice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DirtyDocMartens said:

Man, I don't understand a word of any of this.

Understood.

In short the article presents suggestive evidence of a "cyclic Universe" through observation of the "cosmic background radiation", suggesting the existance of prior black-holes"

According to them, since there is no accounting for this phenom observed, it must have actually happened "pre-creation"... "pre-Big Bang"

I guess that's the thrust...

Residual evidence in the CBR to support a cyclic Universe theory by virtue of supposed unusual remnants of black holes which simply should not exist.

 

 

Edited by pallidin
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about this is scary, lol !The value of space and time are so big that our puny human mind have difficulties to cope with it !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.