<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How Did the Universe Start?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/</link>
	<description>Random samplings from a universe of ideas</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 03:24:18 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Reading between Woit&#8217;s lines; risking one&#8217;s credibility by challenging the establishment line, even in a small way &#171; Bob Dudesky</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-304192</link>
		<dc:creator>Reading between Woit&#8217;s lines; risking one&#8217;s credibility by challenging the establishment line, even in a small way &#171; Bob Dudesky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:54:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-304192</guid>
		<description>[...] and Quarks: Before the Big Bang, the post linked to Woit. Listen here. As we’ve talked about on this very blog, the time is right to push our understanding of the universe back before the Big Bang and ask what [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] and Quarks: Before the Big Bang, the post linked to Woit. Listen here. As we’ve talked about on this very blog, the time is right to push our understanding of the universe back before the Big Bang and ask what [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Quirks and Quarks: Before the Big Bang &#124; Cosmic Variance</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-304113</link>
		<dc:creator>Quirks and Quarks: Before the Big Bang &#124; Cosmic Variance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:09:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-304113</guid>
		<description>[...] here. As we&#8217;ve talked about on this very blog, the time is right to push our understanding of the universe back before the Big Bang and ask what [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] here. As we&#8217;ve talked about on this very blog, the time is right to push our understanding of the universe back before the Big Bang and ask what [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bernard McCarthy</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-302067</link>
		<dc:creator>Bernard McCarthy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-302067</guid>
		<description>Hi guys, Hope I can join this debate? I don't have a degree in any scientific discipline but I have studied well and I am always willing to learn!. What I would like to postulate is this,.. Since we have no awareness of why our brains really function and therefore have no real scientific proof of the beginning of intelligence which has taken our race so far? ..Then how come, from a simple exchange of chromosones and a passing on of DNA, we have reached a level of understanding that belies our simple chemistry?  I submit, That the universe is and always shall be a playground in which any intelligent lifeform may take form.

However, I will say this! I could not have been able to think this far because some guys gave up their sons on the beaches of Normandy! You Americans are why I still live and why I am still here and I will for one ..Will ..Never forget that your sons gave me the chance to live .God bless you America..And all the brothers who died on that Day. Now that dissolves any thought about what I have been told to do by my father who held an American in his hands and watched him die! Let now be shown that the boy died for us and told my father through dreams that a man called by the name Allah gore must not be made pure! And not to be made a prophet! Another number! Be that he is able to change things Before us,and he will always be encouraged to do so?..And must be impelled to do so! .I applaud all scientists who reach out and search for the clues to the belonging and well being of the sphere but He must not be allowed to take the higher ground! I implore you to take a stand! That boy of yours who died on the fields of Europe did not die for nothing! He was An American and he believes in truth. If Gore gets in then the end days are coming! God bless America and put Hilary in the whitehouse because then Mary will be happy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi guys, Hope I can join this debate? I don&#8217;t have a degree in any scientific discipline but I have studied well and I am always willing to learn!. What I would like to postulate is this,.. Since we have no awareness of why our brains really function and therefore have no real scientific proof of the beginning of intelligence which has taken our race so far? ..Then how come, from a simple exchange of chromosones and a passing on of DNA, we have reached a level of understanding that belies our simple chemistry?  I submit, That the universe is and always shall be a playground in which any intelligent lifeform may take form.</p>
<p>However, I will say this! I could not have been able to think this far because some guys gave up their sons on the beaches of Normandy! You Americans are why I still live and why I am still here and I will for one ..Will ..Never forget that your sons gave me the chance to live .God bless you America..And all the brothers who died on that Day. Now that dissolves any thought about what I have been told to do by my father who held an American in his hands and watched him die! Let now be shown that the boy died for us and told my father through dreams that a man called by the name Allah gore must not be made pure! And not to be made a prophet! Another number! Be that he is able to change things Before us,and he will always be encouraged to do so?..And must be impelled to do so! .I applaud all scientists who reach out and search for the clues to the belonging and well being of the sphere but He must not be allowed to take the higher ground! I implore you to take a stand! That boy of yours who died on the fields of Europe did not die for nothing! He was An American and he believes in truth. If Gore gets in then the end days are coming! God bless America and put Hilary in the whitehouse because then Mary will be happy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 4491</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-300381</link>
		<dc:creator>4491</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Sep 2007 06:29:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-300381</guid>
		<description>I don't believe the so called "theories" on how the universe first started.  I think that we shouldn't start accepting these theories as facts.  I also hate when scientist try to descredit critics that dissect their theories instead of trying to descredit the flaws critics point out.  

Were still finding more information out all of the time.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30

I came to realization that all of these theories on how the universe started have no reasonable explanation of how nothing caused the occurance from happening.  So many of the how the universe started theories don't try to explain what happened before the event or try to say that an infinite amount of events happened before the occurance that started the universe.  

What theory can explain a finite amount of energy appearing out from nothing without cause?  Why that certian amount?  If an event caused the event that created the universe then what caused the event that caused the event that created the universe?  and so on.

Why do so many people believe in the existance of so called dark matter / dark energy when they is very very little if any evidence of its existance?  Pathetic!  Dark matter now suddenly exists to try and give more evidence to big bang!  So what caused the first event from nothing?

We simply don't have enough evidence to start making conclusions on how the universe began.  We don't even know exacly what energy, space/time is even though its right infront of us just like we can't imagine what another spacial dimension or color (not in the colorwheel) would look like first hand.  The fact that something from nothing happened isn't being stressed enough.

Big bang doesn't explain the specific amount of energy we observe.  Why would a singularity pop out a specific amount of energy?  Why do we have these specific parameters?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t believe the so called &#8220;theories&#8221; on how the universe first started.  I think that we shouldn&#8217;t start accepting these theories as facts.  I also hate when scientist try to descredit critics that dissect their theories instead of trying to descredit the flaws critics point out.  </p>
<p>Were still finding more information out all of the time.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm</a><br />
<a href="http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30" rel="nofollow">http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30</a></p>
<p>I came to realization that all of these theories on how the universe started have no reasonable explanation of how nothing caused the occurance from happening.  So many of the how the universe started theories don&#8217;t try to explain what happened before the event or try to say that an infinite amount of events happened before the occurance that started the universe.  </p>
<p>What theory can explain a finite amount of energy appearing out from nothing without cause?  Why that certian amount?  If an event caused the event that created the universe then what caused the event that caused the event that created the universe?  and so on.</p>
<p>Why do so many people believe in the existance of so called dark matter / dark energy when they is very very little if any evidence of its existance?  Pathetic!  Dark matter now suddenly exists to try and give more evidence to big bang!  So what caused the first event from nothing?</p>
<p>We simply don&#8217;t have enough evidence to start making conclusions on how the universe began.  We don&#8217;t even know exacly what energy, space/time is even though its right infront of us just like we can&#8217;t imagine what another spacial dimension or color (not in the colorwheel) would look like first hand.  The fact that something from nothing happened isn&#8217;t being stressed enough.</p>
<p>Big bang doesn&#8217;t explain the specific amount of energy we observe.  Why would a singularity pop out a specific amount of energy?  Why do we have these specific parameters?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Science and no Religion in Reykjavik! &#124; Cosmic Variance</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-297012</link>
		<dc:creator>Science and no Religion in Reykjavik! &#124; Cosmic Variance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 20:19:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-297012</guid>
		<description>[...] only clearly defined question: Why did our universe begin in such a low entropy state? (Something we&#8217;ve discussed here at Cosmic Variance on a number of occasions. See also Sean&#8217;s discussion at Preposterous [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] only clearly defined question: Why did our universe begin in such a low entropy state? (Something we&#8217;ve discussed here at Cosmic Variance on a number of occasions. See also Sean&#8217;s discussion at Preposterous [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Against Bounces &#124; Cosmic Variance</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-293840</link>
		<dc:creator>Against Bounces &#124; Cosmic Variance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 16:53:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-293840</guid>
		<description>[...] already know what I think about such ideas, but let me just focus in on one big problem with all such approaches (which I&#8217;ve already [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] already know what I think about such ideas, but let me just focus in on one big problem with all such approaches (which I&#8217;ve already [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean the Heretic &#171; Bob Dudesky</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-288266</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean the Heretic &#171; Bob Dudesky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 06:10:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-288266</guid>
		<description>[...] is challenging something in How Did the Universe Start? Whatever he&#8217;s talking about (it matters but it doesn&#8217;t matter), nothing in the long [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is challenging something in How Did the Universe Start? Whatever he&#8217;s talking about (it matters but it doesn&#8217;t matter), nothing in the long [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RAWDC &#187; Sean the Heretic</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-285558</link>
		<dc:creator>RAWDC &#187; Sean the Heretic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:29:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-285558</guid>
		<description>[...] is challenging something in How Did the Universe Start? Whatever he&#8217;s talking about (it matters but it doesn&#8217;t matter), nothing in the long [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is challenging something in How Did the Universe Start? Whatever he&#8217;s talking about (it matters but it doesn&#8217;t matter), nothing in the long [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CAPT</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-264842</link>
		<dc:creator>CAPT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 15:59:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-264842</guid>
		<description>Because the thoery if the big bang and creationism both have a chance to prove each other wrong. I am with Evolution but if there was a big bang then how did the life START</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Because the thoery if the big bang and creationism both have a chance to prove each other wrong. I am with Evolution but if there was a big bang then how did the life START</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CAPT</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-264841</link>
		<dc:creator>CAPT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 15:55:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-264841</guid>
		<description>Do you think that god created all</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you think that god created all</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: How the Universe began &#171; Skeptigator</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-264186</link>
		<dc:creator>How the Universe began &#171; Skeptigator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 12:21:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-264186</guid>
		<description>[...] May 21st, 2007 in Science   Cosmic Variance has a really cool post from awhile backÂ about the Big Bang. There are a number of theories put forth as to how it all [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] May 21st, 2007 in Science   Cosmic Variance has a really cool post from awhile backÂ about the Big Bang. There are a number of theories put forth as to how it all [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thermodynamic equilibrium and our universe &#171; P-world and R-world</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-260844</link>
		<dc:creator>Thermodynamic equilibrium and our universe &#171; P-world and R-world</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2007 15:00:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-260844</guid>
		<description>[...] Here&#8217;s another goodie.Â  Sample quote: In a similar spirit, Gott and Li suggest that the universe could â€œcreate itself,â€ springing to life out of an endless loop of closed timelike curves. More colorfully, â€œan inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself.â€ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Here&#8217;s another goodie.Â  Sample quote: In a similar spirit, Gott and Li suggest that the universe could â€œcreate itself,â€ springing to life out of an endless loop of closed timelike curves. More colorfully, â€œan inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself.â€ [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Valletta</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-259983</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Valletta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2007 19:25:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-259983</guid>
		<description>This may go quite a way in answer to Sean's post # 63
:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1178</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This may go quite a way in answer to Sean&#8217;s post # 63<br />
:<br />
<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1178" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1178</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spaceman</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-259288</link>
		<dc:creator>spaceman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 06:37:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-259288</guid>
		<description>The issue brought up in the Luminet et al paper is very relevant to the topic of this thread. If the Universe is small and spherical, then this would put constraints on how it began. First and foremost, the vast majority of inflationary theories predict a flat infinite universe. Right away these theories would have to be abandoned. We would be forced to ask the question: What quantum gravitational process could have brought about a dodecahedral universe? 

Actually, Luminet et al have shown more of a confirmation bias than most authors I have known to put forth speculative ideas. They refuse to accept evidence which would make one seriously doubt the validity of their model-- even some of their own evidence. Rather than search for matched circles in the CMB they keep relying on indirect evidence to buttress their view even though they put forth this model four years ago.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The issue brought up in the Luminet et al paper is very relevant to the topic of this thread. If the Universe is small and spherical, then this would put constraints on how it began. First and foremost, the vast majority of inflationary theories predict a flat infinite universe. Right away these theories would have to be abandoned. We would be forced to ask the question: What quantum gravitational process could have brought about a dodecahedral universe? </p>
<p>Actually, Luminet et al have shown more of a confirmation bias than most authors I have known to put forth speculative ideas. They refuse to accept evidence which would make one seriously doubt the validity of their model&#8211; even some of their own evidence. Rather than search for matched circles in the CMB they keep relying on indirect evidence to buttress their view even though they put forth this model four years ago.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neither Coleman nor deLuccia</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-257593</link>
		<dc:creator>Neither Coleman nor deLuccia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2007 06:37:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-257593</guid>
		<description>By the way, I would not have it thought that I believe that there is something boring about vanilla. I am amazed and appalled, as they say in the letters sections, that Max Tegmark goes about talking about "plain vanilla" this and "plain vanilla" that. Au contraire, vanilla, the real thing I mean, is one of the most subtle of all flavors. If Max and the others who affect this terminology are reading: please in future refer to "plain caramel" or [ugh] "plain butterscotch" cosmological scenari. Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By the way, I would not have it thought that I believe that there is something boring about vanilla. I am amazed and appalled, as they say in the letters sections, that Max Tegmark goes about talking about &#8220;plain vanilla&#8221; this and &#8220;plain vanilla&#8221; that. Au contraire, vanilla, the real thing I mean, is one of the most subtle of all flavors. If Max and the others who affect this terminology are reading: please in future refer to &#8220;plain caramel&#8221; or [ugh] &#8220;plain butterscotch&#8221; cosmological scenari. Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neither Coleman nor deLuccia</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-257587</link>
		<dc:creator>Neither Coleman nor deLuccia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2007 06:33:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-257587</guid>
		<description>Spaceman, I saw that paper too. What you say about the authors could be said about any speculative idea. While I don't think that this idea is likely to be right, I wish the authors well: their idea is a truly beautiful one. We should not always assume that the most boring possibilities are always the right ones. I'm amused by the plethora of papers declaring solemnly that some data set is "compatible" with the notion that the cosmic acceleration is due to a plain vanilla CC. What they neglect to mention is the fact that their data are *also* "compatible" with many other suggestions. What they are really doing is striving to establish their bona-fides as respectable members of the community who [apparently by definition] always prefer boring explanations to interesting ones....by the way, what has this to do with the topic of the thread? I suppose you could say that if they are right, then inflation is probably wrong, and that would certainly change our views as to how the universe began.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Spaceman, I saw that paper too. What you say about the authors could be said about any speculative idea. While I don&#8217;t think that this idea is likely to be right, I wish the authors well: their idea is a truly beautiful one. We should not always assume that the most boring possibilities are always the right ones. I&#8217;m amused by the plethora of papers declaring solemnly that some data set is &#8220;compatible&#8221; with the notion that the cosmic acceleration is due to a plain vanilla CC. What they neglect to mention is the fact that their data are *also* &#8220;compatible&#8221; with many other suggestions. What they are really doing is striving to establish their bona-fides as respectable members of the community who [apparently by definition] always prefer boring explanations to interesting ones&#8230;.by the way, what has this to do with the topic of the thread? I suppose you could say that if they are right, then inflation is probably wrong, and that would certainly change our views as to how the universe began&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: spaceman</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-256621</link>
		<dc:creator>spaceman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2007 05:13:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-256621</guid>
		<description>Sean,

Just today a new paper was submitted to the preprint archive by Luminet et al which strongly suggests that the Universe is indeed a gigantic expanding dodecahedron (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.0217v1.pdf). Interestingly, one of the authors of this paper, Jeff Weeks, came out with a paper last fall which concluded that the dodecahedral space "completely fails to explain" the low-l anomalies in the WMAP3 data. The resolution of this paradox comes from, according to Weeks et al, the fact this very latest analysis is state-of-the-art. This is just my opinion, but it appears that Weeks et al are suffering from a classic case of what is known as confirmation bias--that is, they tended to ignore evidence against their view whilst stubbornly clingling to it. Again it all comes down to a simple and important question in modern cosmology: What other explanation is more likely for these missing CMB fluctuations than the purely geometric one briefly outlined above?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sean,</p>
<p>Just today a new paper was submitted to the preprint archive by Luminet et al which strongly suggests that the Universe is indeed a gigantic expanding dodecahedron (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.0217v1.pdf). Interestingly, one of the authors of this paper, Jeff Weeks, came out with a paper last fall which concluded that the dodecahedral space &#8220;completely fails to explain&#8221; the low-l anomalies in the WMAP3 data. The resolution of this paradox comes from, according to Weeks et al, the fact this very latest analysis is state-of-the-art. This is just my opinion, but it appears that Weeks et al are suffering from a classic case of what is known as confirmation bias&#8211;that is, they tended to ignore evidence against their view whilst stubbornly clingling to it. Again it all comes down to a simple and important question in modern cosmology: What other explanation is more likely for these missing CMB fluctuations than the purely geometric one briefly outlined above?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dumb Biologist</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-256480</link>
		<dc:creator>Dumb Biologist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 16:53:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-256480</guid>
		<description>How do you get processes when the bulk is, as far as I can tell from my limited reading on and understanding of the subject, not the time dimension?  Folks talk about things colliding, tunneling, expanding, inflating...they use some verb which seems to imply a change occurs, but how do you get change when there is no time?  How do pre-big bang cosmologies organize different states of this "larger" structure, whatever it is?  How do we say we're in the baby, and not the parent universe?  How do you even establish a relationship of that sort when "before" and "after" are not meaningful concepts?  Or maybe that's a complete misinterpretation of the nature of "the bulk" or whatever structure the entire "multiverse" is supposed to have?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How do you get processes when the bulk is, as far as I can tell from my limited reading on and understanding of the subject, not the time dimension?  Folks talk about things colliding, tunneling, expanding, inflating&#8230;they use some verb which seems to imply a change occurs, but how do you get change when there is no time?  How do pre-big bang cosmologies organize different states of this &#8220;larger&#8221; structure, whatever it is?  How do we say we&#8217;re in the baby, and not the parent universe?  How do you even establish a relationship of that sort when &#8220;before&#8221; and &#8220;after&#8221; are not meaningful concepts?  Or maybe that&#8217;s a complete misinterpretation of the nature of &#8220;the bulk&#8221; or whatever structure the entire &#8220;multiverse&#8221; is supposed to have?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-256476</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 16:21:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-256476</guid>
		<description>Josh--  Stat mech is supposed to derive laws of macroscopic behavior from microscopic laws; so why are the microscopic laws reversible, and not the macroscopic ones?  Boltzmann thought he had shown how it could happen with his H-theorem, but it was a cheat.  The real answer is that boundary conditions are responsible -- the observable universe's initial configuration is very low-entropy, for reasons that remain mysterious.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Josh&#8211;  Stat mech is supposed to derive laws of macroscopic behavior from microscopic laws; so why are the microscopic laws reversible, and not the macroscopic ones?  Boltzmann thought he had shown how it could happen with his H-theorem, but it was a cheat.  The real answer is that boundary conditions are responsible &#8212; the observable universe&#8217;s initial configuration is very low-entropy, for reasons that remain mysterious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh</title>
		<link>http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/#comment-256443</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 12:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cosmicvariance.com/?p=1216#comment-256443</guid>
		<description>Sean,
I was under the impression that CPT invariance governed microscopic particle interactions as opposed to the statistical properties of many body systems.   How is it related to entropy then?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sean,<br />
I was under the impression that CPT invariance governed microscopic particle interactions as opposed to the statistical properties of many body systems.   How is it related to entropy then?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
