Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

Friday, January 2, 2009

Eternal Return

Posted by Charles Mudede on Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:23 AM

The most divine, the galactic loop:
mg20026861.500-1_300.jpg

ABHAY ASHTEKAR remembers his reaction the first time he saw the universe bounce. "I was taken aback," he says. He was watching a simulation of the universe rewind towards the big bang. Mostly the universe behaved as expected, becoming smaller and denser as the galaxies converged. But then, instead of reaching the big bang "singularity", the universe bounced and started expanding again. What on earth was happening?

Ashtekar wanted to be sure of what he was seeing, so he asked his colleagues to sit on the result for six months before publishing it in 2006. And no wonder. The theory that the recycled universe was based on, called loop quantum cosmology (LQC), had managed to illuminate the very birth of the universe - something even Einstein's general theory of relativity fails to do.


That was in the language of science; this is in the language of philosophy:

What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.'

Share via

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Email
 

Comments (15) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
this is beautiful Charles...thanks for sharing.
Happy New Year to you.
Posted by Betty on January 2, 2009 at 9:29 AM
2
Yes! At least so far, I would welcome the repeats. But, it seems to me, there is also an element of randomness. Like no fingerprints or DNA are the same, I think no universe would be the same.
Posted by Vince on January 2, 2009 at 9:43 AM
3
Happy Recycled Year!
Posted by infrequent on January 2, 2009 at 9:43 AM
4
Why is the language of science so much more beautiful in this case than in the language of philosophy? Is philosophy unable to articulate the beauty of science?
Posted by sdf on January 2, 2009 at 9:44 AM
5
So we are all just pop songs?
Posted by butt.com on January 2, 2009 at 9:44 AM
6
@4 Maybe because science is unlimited and philosophy seems limited by human experience. At least to me, anyway.
Posted by Vince on January 2, 2009 at 9:48 AM
7
isn't this what they are saying in Battlestar Galactica?
Posted by Gordon Werner on January 2, 2009 at 9:48 AM
8
thanks charles..
Posted by reverend dr dj riz on January 2, 2009 at 10:47 AM
9
Good Morning & Happy New Year Charles,
Yeah, I read that piece yesterday from New Scientist. Quite fascinating. Reminds of Nietzsche's (?) idea of "Eternal Recurrence". Hmm? I like what Woody Allen once remarked "maybe that means having to view the Ice Follies all over again." Yikes!
Posted by lark on January 2, 2009 at 11:35 AM
10
but but... that quote by Nietzsche is just hypothetical-- the way you answer determines whether you affirm life. The point has nothing to do with metaphysics or cosmology.
Posted by lo lo bird on January 2, 2009 at 1:28 PM
11
I thought the cyclical universe theory was out of style and that now they're into the universe expanding forever until so much dark matter accumulates that another big bang occurs...or something. (goes to google for answers)
Posted by zephsright on January 2, 2009 at 1:42 PM
12
also! @4 I think nietzsche's way prettier then whatever science whatever, and @6 science is not unlimited. read thomas kuhn's "on the structure of scientific revolutions." It's important!
Posted by lo lo bird on January 2, 2009 at 1:52 PM
13
@12, "I think nietzsche's way prettier then whatever science whatever" .... I'll take your whatever with a large helping of whatever, then. You also might want to reexamine your understanding of science if you don't see it's limitlessness.
Posted by sdf on January 2, 2009 at 3:53 PM
14
It's not limitless because it's not definite. I mean, it's as infinite as the imagination, but there's a limit to how far we can know it corresponds to reality.

Yeah, way to get this two months late. Oh well.
Posted by lo lo bird on February 28, 2009 at 3:08 PM
15
Oh right, and at least I got far enough in my examination of science to get to the UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE.

God hates you farking English majors!
Posted by lo lo bird on February 28, 2009 at 4:22 PM

Add a comment

Most Commented on Slog

 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use