WELCOME TO THE UNIVERSE, PART II — by Steve Nadis
The more I think about that contract I signed, giving the publisher rights to my work (or I should say works) “throughout the universe,” the more like a sap I feel. But then I think, “Hey wait a minute! Look on the bright side. You’ve always wanted to part of something bigger than yourself. This is your chance.” Welcome to the universe, in other words. It gives me kind of a cozy feeling.
At times when I get annoyed, feeling that the publisher overreached just a bit, I can always take comfort in the notion of a “multiverse”–the idea that our universe is but one in an endless number of universes. I’m not making this up: Multiple universes are an almost standard part of inflationary cosmology, as well as central to ideas related to the string theory “landscape.” (More on that later.) So if the theorists behind the multiverse concept are correct, that publisher only has rights to my work in one universe–one out of an infinite number. Looking at it in that light, they don’t have much. And I’m having the last laugh.
Posted by
at
14:48:18
In one of those other universes, this blog is actually about volleyball.
Doc, I believe your getting the point. By the way, does the honorific in your title refer to an honorary degree in astrophysics and cosmology?
It refers to the host of a kid’s cartoon show I enjoyed in my youth (see the top of my links list). I am not a doctor and I don’t play one on TV. I do enjoy diet Dr. Pepper as a beverage however.
You’ll always be a doctor in my book, earned or not.
I enjoyed your article in S. & T. on “sizing up Inflation”.
I read everything I can get my hands on of this fascinating subject. It is wonderful how we have been able to advance our understanding of these things and how the evidence is converging to allow for the measurements and theoretical proofs of “precision cosmology”.
I still strugle to understand some things which all cosmologists seem to gloss over.
When we look back with COBE or WMAP we see a completely flat universe, But you all tell us Lambda is not 1, but a fraction. How do you reconcile this, please explain.
This flat history is amended with the discovery of an accelerating universe, so are we to understand that the universe is flat, but that we a exist in an accelerating era where the universe is racing into a forever open fate?
Does the precision cosmology that so beautifully predicts the observed cosmic abundances, take into account the dark matter that comprises most of the mass of the universe?.
The textbook equations don’t mention this in the equations. What about dark energy?,I know we don’t know it’s nature yet, so how can you account for precision cosmology without taking it’s effect into account?.
Please help me understand this. Another headline grabber is that the universe is composed mostly of dark energy.
I see pie charts showing the energy contributions of all the components, baryons, D.E. , D. M., etc. But wasn’t Dark energy’s contruibution nil until the era where acceleration started?. If the energy did not manifest until 6 or 7 billion years ago, then how can it be a contributory factor in it’s mass equation?. If we are accelerating now, does the mass energy contribution from dark energy counterbalance the acceleration?, or is the universe gaining mass energy from acceleration.
I’m fascinated by the portion of inflation theory that describes the seed of the inlationary universe as a virtual quantum, If the universe arose from a virtual quantum and is essentially still a “free lunch”, doesn’t the virtual quantum have to either be paid back eventually,
(despite the enormous mass that coupled to this virtual particle), or hide from the multiverse the evidence that it produced anything substantial?. To me that is the reason acceleration is in the mix, eventually there will be no evidence of anything outside of our local group of galaxies, it will be over the horizon. No substantial part of the universe will be within the horizon of any other substantial part, our horizon will get smaller and smaller,
as if the virtual quantum has hidden evidence of the big bang and will never have to repay the debt. God surely did not have to make much of an invetment under this scheme, just the anthromorphic rule system under which this rube goldberg universe was created, and a virtual quantum.
Dear Astevis — Thanks for your long and thoughtful comment and your kind words about the S&T article. I wish I had time to respond to your equally thoughtful questions. Unfortunately, I use this space to goof off and write about things of little consequence, which means I probably won’t have time to address the important, serious questions you ask. Sorry. But keep reading up on the subject; eventually you may find the answers.
You are very very professional.I dream i could do such a great job as you do.