From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 17:09:27 MST
I saw via slashdot that the New York Times is running an article today
on new implications of the recent observations of the cosmic microwave
background (CMB),
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/science/space/11COSM.html. Ironically
the new analysis comes from the same Tegmark whose paper on possible
ways of getting parallel universes has been much discussed in this thread.
It's ironic because, according to the article, the latest spin on the
results would violate both of Tegmark's levels one and two, that the
universe is spatially infinite and that inflation is occuring. The new
data hints that the universe has a finite volume, possibly even not
much bigger than our observable universe! The edges would "wrap around"
like in some of the popular space war video games.
If the universe is finite like this, then there are not multiple copies of
ourselves scattered throughout space. And this result is not compatible
with inflation, either, which predicts an infinite universe.
However the new data is quite sketchy and this possible interpretation
is a very dramatic step to take, turning much of cosmology on its head.
I loved this quote at the end of the article by Dr. Janna Levin:
"'I suspect every last one of us would be flabbergasted if the universe
was so small,' she said in an e-mail message. When she first heard about
the new satellite data, she reported, 'I tried on the idea that we were
really and truly seeing the finite extent of space and I was filled
with dread.'"
I love that: "I was filled with dread". Such drama! People think
cosmology is all dry analysis and equations, when it's actually the
most fundamental science there is, asking some of the most important
questions. Indeed, I too am horrified at the thought that the universe
may be so small.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 11 2003 - 17:18:35 MST