Intelligence: A Rare Cosmic Commodity

[broncosteven]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080410-am-intelligence-model.html

It is even more rare here!


Intelligence: A Rare Cosmic Commodity
By John D. Ruley
Astrobiology Magazine
posted: 10 April 2008
07:00 am ET


Advanced ground and space-based telescopes are discovering new planets around other stars almost daily, but an environmental scientist from England believes that even if some of those planets turn out to be Earth-like, the odds are very low they'll have intelligent inhabitants.

In a recent paper published in the journal Astrobiology, Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia describes an improved mathematical model for the evolution of intelligent life as the result of a small number of discrete steps.

Evolutionary step models have been used before, but Watson (a Fellow of England's Royal Society who studied under James Lovelock, inventor of the "Gaia hypothesis") sees a limiting factor: The habitability of the Earth (and presumably, other living worlds) will end as the sun brightens. Like most stars, as it progresses along the main sequence, the sun's output increases (it is believed to be about 25 percent brighter now than when the Earth formed). Within at most 1 billion years, this will raise the average temperature of the Earth to 50 degrees C, rendering the planet uninhabitable.

Four major steps

Applying the limited lifespan to a stepwise model, Watson finds that approximately four major evolutionary steps were required before an intelligent civilization could develop on Earth. These steps probably included the emergence of single celled life about half a billion years after the Earth was formed, multicellular life about a billion and a half years later, specialized cells allowing complex life forms with functional organs a billion years after that, and human language a billion years later still.

Several of these steps agree with major transitions that have been observed in the archeological record.

Watson estimates the overall probability that intelligent life will evolve as the product of the probabilities of each of the necessary steps. In his model, the probability of each evolutionary step occurring in any given epoch is 10 percent or less, so the total probability that intelligent life will emerge is quite low (less than 0.01 percent over 4 billion years). Even if intelligent life eventually emerges, the model suggests its persistence will be relatively short by comparison to the lifespan of the planet on which it developed.

The mathematical methods Watson used assume that each evolutionary step is independent of the others, though they must occur in sequence. Watson considers this "a reasonable first approximation for what is, after all, a very idealized sort of model, deliberately simplified enough that the math can be solved analytically."

Critical changes

Watson also suggests that some of the critical steps may have changed the biosphere irreversibly.

The development of photosynthetic plants, for example, led to an oxygen atmosphere, which was a necessary precursor to the development of complex land animals. Once this transition occurred, any further evolutionary step would have to take place in an oxygen atmosphere, which may have limited opportunities for non oxygen-breathing life to evolve.

Watson says in the conclusion to his paper: " ... only on those rare planets on which complex creatures happen to evolve can there exist observers who ask questions about evolution and care about the answers." Asked if an advanced, space-faring civilization might be able to survive the brightening of its star by migrating off the planet where it evolved, Watson agrees that's possible: "the model predicts only when 'intelligence' can arise based on the time available. Once the observers exist, they might do all manner of things to find new places to live."

[Vegas_Bronco]

So, basically, evolution can occur in more than just the physical realm? Metaphysical evolution drives the whole universe? Our intelligence came from more than just a single cell organism???

Dude, sounds like this guy needs to really look into the BIG GUY upstairs and how his hand may have thrown this bick round rock we live on into the pond. Lot of time in science is wasted studying the history of the earth and very little studying the history of Adam's seed, imho.

[TheReverend]

So, basically, evolution can occur in more than just the physical realm? Metaphysical evolution drives the whole universe? Our intelligence came from more than just a single cell organism???

Dude, sounds like this guy needs to really look into the BIG GUY upstairs and how his hand may have thrown this bick round rock we live on into the pond. Lot of time in science is wasted studying the history of the earth and very little studying the history of Adam's seed, imho.

Please tell me you're ****ing kidding me...

[Kaylore]

This was a cool article and now the thread is going to be reduced to a high-school level argument about God vs. Monkeys.

[TheReverend]

This was a cool article and now the thread is going to be reduced to a high-school level argument about God vs. Monkeys.

I'd say those odds are pretty high.

[watermock]

They have arrived, and we are they.

[RubberDuckie24]

"Watson says in the conclusion to his paper: " ... only on those rare planets on which complex creatures happen to evolve can there exist observers who ask questions about evolution and care about the answers.""

Lmao, even I could of told you that without knowing a damn thing about astronomy!

[alkemical]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=67539

From autopsies of famous Russians to a new model based on imaging studies, scientists keep looking



The blue circles mark brain areas in the left hemisphere strongly associated with intelligence and reasoning, while red circles mark relevant areas in both hemispheres. The P-FIT model proposes that those areas are linked by a neural pathway known as the arcuate fasciculus, represented by the arrow, which is vital for the production and comprehension of language. (image courtesy of Rex E. Jung and Richard J. Haier)

For years, Russian scientists harvested the brains of exceptionally smart people, trying to locate the source of their intelligence. After V.I. Lenin died in 1924, for example, the Russians invited the great German neuroanatomist Oskar Vogt to try to locate the “source of genius” in the leader of the Russian revolution. Vogt cut Lenin’s brain into more than 1,100 slices, but he found nothing exceptional except unusually large pyramidal cells.

The last brain that the Russians studied in this way was that of Andrei Sakharov, the nuclear physicist and human rights activist who died in 1989. From the dozens of brains they studied, the researchers made many observations about brain size, the density of neurons and the number of convolutions of the cortex, but their findings revealed next to nothing about human intelligence.

Today, scientists around the world continue to search for the physiological basis of human intelligence, but they also focus on genetic variation, which appears to determine about half of a brain’s cognitive ability on average, as measured by standard IQ tests. And by using modern scanning techniques, they are gaining much more detailed insights into the structure and function of the brain than the Russians could achieve through dissection.

The emerging consensus is that intelligence depends not just of the efficiency or power of various brain regions, but also on the strength of the connections that link them.

“These early attempts to find the physiological basis of intelligence were limited by a lack of modern technology,” said Richard J. Haier, a professor in the School of Medicine at the University of California, Irvine, who uses brain imaging to study higher cognitive processes. “With the advent of modern medical imaging it became possible to look for more subtle differences than you might find with gross anatomy.”

(Cont'd on site (http://www.dana.org/news/features/detail.aspx?id=11918))

[no-pseudo-fan]

This was a cool article and now the thread is going to be reduced to a high-school level argument about God vs. Monkeys.

Don't you mean God(zilla) vs. monkeys(King kong)? That movie really upset me, there is no way in hell that King kong can beat Godzilla. there would be fried ape hair everywhere.

[no-pseudo-fan]

"Watson says in the conclusion to his paper: " ... only on those rare planets on which complex creatures happen to evolve can there exist observers who ask questions about evolution and care about the answers.""

Lmao, even I could of told you that without knowing a damn thing about astronomy!

All of lifes answers can be found in either Planet of the Apes, or The Godfather. These are the Governing principles of every man's life, and once you realize that you will be much better off.

[broncosteven]

This was a cool article and now the thread is going to be reduced to a high-school level argument about God vs. Monkeys.

Tom Brookshire, Jimmy the greek, and Howard Cosell know all about Monkeys and evolution.

[Rohirrim]

Seems to me if there was such a thing as the Big Bang, then there is a center to the universe around which everything is turning. All you do is find where the orbital ring of Earth is on the great wheel. Then, everything closer to the center would be younger and everything beyond our orbit would be older. Ergo, you'd have a better chance of finding intelligent life out on the older rings. Right?

[alkemical]

Seems to me if there was such a thing as the Big Bang, then there is a center to the universe around which everything is turning. All you do is find where the orbital ring of Earth is on the great wheel. Then, everything closer to the center would be younger and everything beyond our orbit would be older. Ergo, you'd have a better chance of finding intelligent life out on the older rings. Right?


Or maybe, say being's that live on a gaseous planet are light beings, so our definition of life is different....

But hey, so long and thanks for all the fish

[Northman]

Don't you mean God(zilla) vs. monkeys(King kong)? That movie really upset me, there is no way in hell that King kong can beat Godzilla. there would be fried ape hair everywhere.


Agreed. Godzilla is KING OF THE MONSTERS for a reason.

[Beantown Bronco]

Agreed. Godzilla is KING OF THE MONSTERS for a reason.

I think the monster from Cloverfield could probably take him.

[alkemical]

nope, i agree guys. There is no way king kong wins that ****. no way.

[Kaylore]

Or maybe, say being's that live on a gaseous planet are light beings, so our definition of life is different....

But hey, so long and thanks for all the fish

Exactly! Or what about life forms whose base isn't water but ammonia, or mercury or even methane? We're chemical in nature, but what about beings of different matter composition entirely? We're thinking too one dimensionally. What if there are beings of pure energy? The imagination of an all-knowing being allows for an infinite number of creative permutations. ;)

[alkemical]

I think the monster from Cloverfield could probably take him.

See, i don't think so. They are both along the same lines of lore. They might infact be sorta the same. Like the Kraken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraken), or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chtulhu

[Northman]

I think the monster from Cloverfield could probably take him.


Rumor has it G was the Cloverfield monster. I havent seen it yet to make the determination but when i do i will verify the contents. :~ohyah!:

[alkemical]

Exactly! Or what about life forms whose base isn't water but ammonia, or mercury or even methane? We're chemical in nature, but what about beings of different matter composition entirely? We're thinking too one dimensionally. What if there are beings of pure energy? The imagination of an all-knowing being allows for an infinite number of creative permutations. ;)


Exactly, in a universe of probability - i don't like to bet against anything ;)

[alkemical]

Rumor has it G was the Cloverfield monster. I havent seen it yet to make the determination but when i do i will verify the contents. :~ohyah!:


http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=53183&highlight=bloop

:)

[Beantown Bronco]

They are similar but not the same.

Cloverfield had the little creatures that detached from the main body and went on the attack.....which would help it out. And Cloverfield had a much longer "reach" with those crazy looking crab type arms. Godzilla had those really short dinosaur type arms. Huge advantage for Cloverfield there.

Did anyone ever try to nuke Godzilla?

[Northman]

They are similar but not the same.

Cloverfield had the little creatures that detached from the main body and went on the attack.....which would help it out. And Cloverfield had a much longer "reach" with those crazy looking crab type arms. Godzilla had those really short dinosaur type arms. Huge advantage for Cloverfield there.

Did anyone ever try to nuke Godzilla?


Yea. They've thrown lazers at Godzilla and even Biollante couldnt match him. No matter how hard they tried the earthlings and other monsters couldnt better the mighty G.


And for the record, the only good thing to come from King Kong was this. :thumbsup:



http://urubu.files.wordpress.com/2006/05/KingKong_1976_JessicaLange.jpg

[alkemical]

They are similar but not the same.

Cloverfield had the little creatures that detached from the main body and went on the attack.....which would help it out. And Cloverfield had a much longer "reach" with those crazy looking crab type arms. Godzilla had those really short dinosaur type arms. Huge advantage for Cloverfield there.

Did anyone ever try to nuke Godzilla?

Read up on Chtulhu.... from teh links i provided

[alkemical]

They are similar but not the same.

Cloverfield had the little creatures that detached from the main body and went on the attack.....which would help it out. And Cloverfield had a much longer "reach" with those crazy looking crab type arms. Godzilla had those really short dinosaur type arms. Huge advantage for Cloverfield there.

Did anyone ever try to nuke Godzilla?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloop

Analysis

The sound, traced to somewhere around [show location on an interactive map] 50° S 100° W (South American southwest coast), was detected repeatedly by the Equatorial Pacific Ocean autonomous hydrophone array, which uses U.S. Navy equipment originally designed to detect Soviet submarines. According to the NOAA description, it "rises rapidly in frequency over about one minute and was of sufficient amplitude to be heard on multiple sensors, at a range of over 5,000 km." Though it matches the audio profile of a living creature, there is no known animal that could have produced the sound. If it is an animal, it would have to be, reportedly, much larger than even a Blue Whale, according to scientists who have studied the phenomenon.[1]

[edit] In popular culture

Because the Bloop noise originated near the location of the fictional sunken city of R'lyeh from H.P. Lovecraft's story "The Call of Cthulhu", the Bloop has been linked to Cthulhu by Lovecraft fans.[2] In the alternate reality game promoting the movie, the Bloop was also linked to the monster from Cloverfield.[3] The Bloop was seen in The Loch by Steve Alten as the call of an undiscovered species of giant eel,[4] as well as in The Swarm as the speech of the intelligent species, the Yrr.[5]

[Northman]

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc128/tupelope/cthulhu-6.jpg



Looks more like Davey Jones. lol

[SJ Bronco]

God vs reality

King king vs Godzilla

Big bang theory

The only post on this thread that was boring was the first one.

[alkemical]

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc128/tupelope/cthulhu-6.jpg



Looks more like Davey Jones. lol

WELLLLLL - that's the whole legend and lore of it - ;) Chtulhu is "laying in a deep sleep for when to be awoken"

[SJ Bronco]

If it didn't get "awoken" by american Idol being a hit show, then we're safe.

[alkemical]

If it didn't get "awoken" by american Idol being a hit show, then we're safe.

Bob sagat hasn't invoked him yet.....

[alkemical]

http://www.toyvault.com/cthulhu/Cthulhu%20Medium%20-%20Large.jpg

cthulhu


http://www.thecinemasource.com/moviesdb/images/Bob%20Saget.gif

Bob Sagat


Tell me they aren't working together

[SJ Bronco]

Im guessing the success of the TV series the new adventures of old christine should have leveled this bad boy years ago.

[broncosteven]

Our universe is just an Atom of a pube on some giants sack.

[SJ Bronco]

This was posted on the joke thread by someone else, but It reminded me of this thread a little
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Default
HOW MANY ORANGE MANERS DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB?

One to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed.

Fourteen to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how
the light bulb could have been changed differently.

Seven to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.

Seven more to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing
light bulbs.

Five to flame the spell checkers.

Three to correct spelling/grammar flames.

Six to argue over whether it's "light bulb" or "lightbulb" .... another
six to condemn those six as stupid.

Fifteen to claim experience in the lighting industry and give the
correct spelling.

Nineteen to post that this group is not about light bulbs and to please
take this discussion to a light bulb (or light bulb) forum.

Eleven to defend the posting to the group saying that we all use light
bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this group.

Thirty six to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior,
where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for
this technique and what brands are faulty.

Seven to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs.

Four to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly and then post the
corrected URL.

Three to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to
this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group.

Thirteen to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety
including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too".

Five to post to the group that they will no longer post because they
cannot handle the light bulb controversy.

Four to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

Thirteen to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting
questions about light bulbs"

Three to tell a funny story about their cat and a light bulb.

AND

One group lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and
start it all over again.

[ScottXray]

This was posted on the joke thread by someone else, but It reminded me of this thread a little
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Default
HOW MANY ORANGE MANERS DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB?

One to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed.

Fourteen to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how
the light bulb could have been changed differently.

Seven to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.

Seven more to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing
light bulbs.

Five to flame the spell checkers.

Three to correct spelling/grammar flames.

Six to argue over whether it's "light bulb" or "lightbulb" .... another
six to condemn those six as stupid.

Fifteen to claim experience in the lighting industry and give the
correct spelling.

Nineteen to post that this group is not about light bulbs and to please
take this discussion to a light bulb (or light bulb) forum.

Eleven to defend the posting to the group saying that we all use light
bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this group.

Thirty six to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior,
where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for
this technique and what brands are faulty.

Seven to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs.

Four to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly and then post the
corrected URL.

Three to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to
this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group.

Thirteen to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety
including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too".

Five to post to the group that they will no longer post because they
cannot handle the light bulb controversy.

Four to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

Thirteen to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting
questions about light bulbs"

Three to tell a funny story about their cat and a light bulb.

AND

One group lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and
start it all over again.

You have too much time on your hands.!

REP:thanku:

[El Minion]

Seems to me if there was such a thing as the Big Bang, then there is a center to the universe around which everything is turning. All you do is find where the orbital ring of Earth is on the great wheel. Then, everything closer to the center would be younger and everything beyond our orbit would be older. Ergo, you'd have a better chance of finding intelligent life out on the older rings. Right?

Or maybe the next time around there maybe more of a probability (http://www.physorg.com/news126955971.html).


---------------------------
Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?
By Lisa Zyga

The new study suggests that the universe that came before our own universe was its identical twin. Image credit: NASA and ESA.

http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/bigbang.png

Until very recently, asking what happened at or before the Big Bang was considered by physicists to be a religious question. General relativity theory just doesn’t go there – at T=0, it spews out zeros, infinities, and errors – and so the question didn’t make sense from a scientific view.

But in the past few years, a new theory called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) has emerged. The theory suggests the possibility of a “quantum bounce,” where our universe stems from the collapse of a previous universe. Yet what that previous universe looked like was still beyond answering.

Now, physicists Alejandro Corichi from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Parampreet Singh from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario have developed a simplified LQG model that gives an intriguing answer: a pre-Big Bang universe might have looked a lot like ours. Their study will appear in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters.

“The significance of this concept is that it answers what happened to the universe before the Big Bang,” Singh told PhysOrg.com. “It has remained a mystery, for models that could resolve the Big Bang singularity, whether it is a quantum foam or a classical space-time on the other side. For instance, if it were a quantum foam, we could not speak about a space-time, a notion of time, etc. Our study shows that the universe on the other side is very classical as ours.”

The finding builds on previous research, with some important differences. Last year, Penn State physicist Martin Bojowald used a simplified version of LQG to show that a universe “on the other side” of the bounce could have existed. However, although that model produced valid math, no observations of our current universe could have lead to any understanding of the state of the pre-bounce universe, as nothing was preserved across the bounce. Bojowald described this as a sort of “cosmic amnesia.”

But Corichi and Singh have modified the simplified LQG theory further by approximating a key equation called the quantum constraint. Using their version, called sLQG, the researchers show that the relative fluctuations of volume and momentum in the pre-bounce universe are conserved across the bounce.

“This means that the twin universe will have the same laws of physics and, in particular, the same notion of time as in ours,” Singh said. “The laws of physics will not change because the evolution is always unitary, which is the nicest way a quantum system can evolve. In our analogy, it will look identical to its twin when seen from afar; one could not distinguish them.”

That means that our universe today, roughly 13.7 billion years after the bounce, would share many of the same properties of the pre-bounce universe at 13.7 billion years before the bounce. In a sense, our universe has a mirror image of itself, with the Big Bang (or bounce) as the line of symmetry.

“In the universe before the bounce, all the general features will be the same,” said Singh. “It will follow the same dynamical equations, the Einstein’s equations when the universe is large. Our model predicts that this happens when the universe becomes of the order 100 times larger than the Planck size. Further, the matter content will be the same, and it will have the same evolution. Since the pre-bounce universe is contracting, it will look as if we were looking at ours backward in time.”

Specifically, Corichi and Singh calculate that the change in relative fluctuations across the bounce is less than 10-56, a number which becomes even smaller for universes that grow larger than 1 megaparsec (our universe is somewhere between 3,000 and 6,000 megaparsecs).

As the researchers explain, having an identical twin universe would not necessarily mean that every single feature of both universes would be identical. For instance, it doesn’t imply that there was another you that existed at some point, a person who has already lived your life.

“If one were able to look at certain microscopic properties with a very strong microscope – a very high-energy experiment probing the Planck scale – one might see differences in some quantities, just as one might see that twins have different fingerprints or one has a mole and the other does not, or a different DNA,” Singh said.

As Singh explained, there are still many questions regarding the details of the possible pre-bounce universe.

“The biggest question is whether these features survive when we consider more complex situations,” he said. “For example, one would like to know whether some structures present in the previous universe – like galaxies – will leave some imprint in the new expanding one that will give rise to identical structure or just 'similar.' For instance, it could happen that, in the previous universe, galaxies formed in a different way, so one might have a different distribution of galaxies on the other side. We will be able to answer this question when we understand these models.”

Ultimately, Corichi and Singh’s model might even tell us what a future universe would look like. Depending on how fast our present universe is accelerating – which will ultimately determine its fate – there’s a possibility that a generalization of the model would predict a re-collapse of our own universe.

“Such a universe will have many bounces from one branch to another,” Singh said. “It is also possible that universes in different branches will be identical.”

More information: Corichi, Alejandro, and Singh, Parampreet. “Quantum bounce and cosmic recall.” Arxiv:0710.4543v2. Accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters.

Copyright 2008 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.

[SJ Bronco]

Or maybe the next time around there maybe more of a probability (http://www.physorg.com/news126955971.html).


---------------------------
Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?
By Lisa Zyga

The new study suggests that the universe that came before our own universe was its identical twin. Image credit: NASA and ESA.

http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/bigbang.png

Until very recently, asking what happened at or before the Big Bang was considered by physicists to be a religious question. General relativity theory just doesn’t go there – at T=0, it spews out zeros, infinities, and errors – and so the question didn’t make sense from a scientific view.

But in the past few years, a new theory called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) has emerged. The theory suggests the possibility of a “quantum bounce,” where our universe stems from the collapse of a previous universe. Yet what that previous universe looked like was still beyond answering.

Now, physicists Alejandro Corichi from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Parampreet Singh from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario have developed a simplified LQG model that gives an intriguing answer: a pre-Big Bang universe might have looked a lot like ours. Their study will appear in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters.

“The significance of this concept is that it answers what happened to the universe before the Big Bang,” Singh told PhysOrg.com. “It has remained a mystery, for models that could resolve the Big Bang singularity, whether it is a quantum foam or a classical space-time on the other side. For instance, if it were a quantum foam, we could not speak about a space-time, a notion of time, etc. Our study shows that the universe on the other side is very classical as ours.”

The finding builds on previous research, with some important differences. Last year, Penn State physicist Martin Bojowald used a simplified version of LQG to show that a universe “on the other side” of the bounce could have existed. However, although that model produced valid math, no observations of our current universe could have lead to any understanding of the state of the pre-bounce universe, as nothing was preserved across the bounce. Bojowald described this as a sort of “cosmic amnesia.”

But Corichi and Singh have modified the simplified LQG theory further by approximating a key equation called the quantum constraint. Using their version, called sLQG, the researchers show that the relative fluctuations of volume and momentum in the pre-bounce universe are conserved across the bounce.

“This means that the twin universe will have the same laws of physics and, in particular, the same notion of time as in ours,” Singh said. “The laws of physics will not change because the evolution is always unitary, which is the nicest way a quantum system can evolve. In our analogy, it will look identical to its twin when seen from afar; one could not distinguish them.”

That means that our universe today, roughly 13.7 billion years after the bounce, would share many of the same properties of the pre-bounce universe at 13.7 billion years before the bounce. In a sense, our universe has a mirror image of itself, with the Big Bang (or bounce) as the line of symmetry.

“In the universe before the bounce, all the general features will be the same,” said Singh. “It will follow the same dynamical equations, the Einstein’s equations when the universe is large. Our model predicts that this happens when the universe becomes of the order 100 times larger than the Planck size. Further, the matter content will be the same, and it will have the same evolution. Since the pre-bounce universe is contracting, it will look as if we were looking at ours backward in time.”

Specifically, Corichi and Singh calculate that the change in relative fluctuations across the bounce is less than 10-56, a number which becomes even smaller for universes that grow larger than 1 megaparsec (our universe is somewhere between 3,000 and 6,000 megaparsecs).

As the researchers explain, having an identical twin universe would not necessarily mean that every single feature of both universes would be identical. For instance, it doesn’t imply that there was another you that existed at some point, a person who has already lived your life.

“If one were able to look at certain microscopic properties with a very strong microscope – a very high-energy experiment probing the Planck scale – one might see differences in some quantities, just as one might see that twins have different fingerprints or one has a mole and the other does not, or a different DNA,” Singh said.

As Singh explained, there are still many questions regarding the details of the possible pre-bounce universe.

“The biggest question is whether these features survive when we consider more complex situations,” he said. “For example, one would like to know whether some structures present in the previous universe – like galaxies – will leave some imprint in the new expanding one that will give rise to identical structure or just 'similar.' For instance, it could happen that, in the previous universe, galaxies formed in a different way, so one might have a different distribution of galaxies on the other side. We will be able to answer this question when we understand these models.”

Ultimately, Corichi and Singh’s model might even tell us what a future universe would look like. Depending on how fast our present universe is accelerating – which will ultimately determine its fate – there’s a possibility that a generalization of the model would predict a re-collapse of our own universe.

“Such a universe will have many bounces from one branch to another,” Singh said. “It is also possible that universes in different branches will be identical.”

More information: Corichi, Alejandro, and Singh, Parampreet. “Quantum bounce and cosmic recall.” Arxiv:0710.4543v2. Accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters.

Copyright 2008 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.

That effectively killed the thread, huh?

[TheReverend]

They are similar but not the same.

Cloverfield had the little creatures that detached from the main body and went on the attack.....which would help it out. And Cloverfield had a much longer "reach" with those crazy looking crab type arms. Godzilla had those really short dinosaur type arms. Huge advantage for Cloverfield there.

Did anyone ever try to nuke Godzilla?

Yeah the dude who made the movie was on vacation in Japan and saw all the Godzilla **** and felt that America needed its own monster and didn't feel King Kong qualified.

Instead of making his own monster, however, all he did was rip off "Sin" from Final Fantasy... which is, ironically enough, another Japanese monster.

[Kaylore]

Except sin had no tentacles.

[Will Wayfarer]

So, basically, evolution can occur in more than just the physical realm? Metaphysical evolution drives the whole universe? Our intelligence came from more than just a single cell organism???

Dude, sounds like this guy needs to really look into the BIG GUY upstairs and how his hand may have thrown this bick round rock we live on into the pond. Lot of time in science is wasted studying the history of the earth and very little studying the history of Adam's seed, imho.

funniest post of the month! Thank you :rofl:

[alkemical]

and chtulhu and the elder ones, created a universe in which HP lovecraft would bring them back to life....

[broncosteven]

I believe in the Quantum Bounce theory but Don't believe in quoting the whole article.

I wonder if mathamaticly we are not repeating ourselves over and over adnausem. I think the Buddists are close to right. We just come back as our selves over and over and over.

[TheReverend]

I believe in the Quantum Bounce theory but Don't believe in quoting the whole article.

I wonder if mathamaticly we are not repeating ourselves over and over adnausem. I think the Buddists are close to right. We just come back as our selves over and over and over.

That concept puts a lot more emphasis behind any insult. You're not just wishing someone to go **** themselves... but to go **** themselves indefinitely.

[TheReverend]

Except sin had no tentacles.

Eh, the pictures look pretty identical to me. Along with the parasites that shoot off the body to attack people.

So point taken. JJ Abrams invented the tentacles. What a genius.

PS. Dog**** film.

[penguintheory]

"Watson says in the conclusion to his paper: " ... only on those rare planets on which complex creatures happen to evolve can there exist observers who ask questions about evolution and care about the answers.""

Lmao, even I could of told you that without knowing a damn thing about astronomy!

Irony Hilarious!