Share
A- A A+
Вид на русском языке
View in Russian
Free Email News
Starlight, Time and the New Physics, second edition; updated
by Dr John Hartnett

US $14.00
View Item
Dismantling the Big Bang
by Alex Williams, John Hartnett

US $17.00
View Item
Hubble, Bubble: Big Bang in Trouble


US $13.00
View Item
Hubble, Bubble: Big Bang in Trouble


US $6.50
View Item
Distant Starlight: A Forum


US $13.00
View Item

Have scientists found evidence of a parallel universe?

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~rchary/

ranga-ram-chary

Ranga-Ram Chary

by  John G. Hartnett

Published: 8 December 2015 (GMT+10)

Caltech cosmologist Ranga-Ram Chary claims that he may have found evidence for the existence of a parallel universe. Many online articles report this.1,2,3

His claim, published in the Astrophysical Journal, suggests some sort of ‘cosmic bruising’—one universe bumping up against another universe—could explain an anomaly he found in the map of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The anomaly is in regards to a mysterious blob of light found in the CMB radiation, which allegedly is leftover radiation from the big bang.

USA Today reports:

Chary, a researcher at the European Space Agency’s Planck Space Telescope data center at CalTech, said the glow could be due to matter from a neighboring universe “leaking” into ours, according to New Scientist magazine.
“Our universe may simply be a region within an eternally inflating super-region,” scientist Chary wrote in a recent study in the Astrophysical Journal.
The anomaly is in regards to a mysterious blob of light found in the CMB radiation.

Quite obviously the claim is highly speculative. Others are skeptical of the claim. Besides that, you must understand the problem in cosmology of proving anything like this. You would have to disprove all other possible causes to ‘prove’ your thesis. To this news Princeton University’s David Spergel commented1,3 that the dust particles from the cosmic microwave background could hold the key to the mysterious blob of light that Chary identified.

“The dust properties are more complicated than we have been assuming, and I think that this is a more plausible explanation”

But it is much more problematic than that.

  1. The CMB radiation may not be from the most distant sources, hence is not relic radiation from the alleged big bang. See ‘Light from the big bang’ casts no shadows.4
  2. Look at the problems associated with the last claimed proof of inflation from BICEP2, the South Pole telescope, where it was found that the detection of B-mode polarization in the CMB radiation most likely is attributable to dust in the Galaxy, hence not from cosmological sources, let alone the alleged inflationary epoch. The claimed proof of the alleged inflationary epoch was wrong.
  3. Finally, one must understand that today’s ‘mainstream’ cosmology is not science but a pagan philosophy. Because cosmology is philosophy and not science it cannot be proven by empirical methods one way or another. “While many renowned scientists acknowledge the possibility of multiple and parallel universes, many other equally accomplished astrophysicists and cosmologists consider the debate a waste of time—more science fiction or philosophy than science. They argue the nature of empirical science makes it impossible to prove or disprove multiverse theories.”1 (my emphasis added)

But Chary knew his ideas would face strong skepticism. He attempted to account for other possibilities. But how could you know that you have exhausted all possibilities? Chary wrote:

“Unusual claims like evidence for alternate universes require a very high burden of proof.”1

Indeed! Such a high burden of proof is required that you would have to be a transcendent Creator to know for sure. Such is the problem of cosmology.

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. Hays, B., Have scientists found evidence of a parallel universe?, SpaceDaily.com 4 November 2015. Return to text
  2. Hanks, M., ‘Mysterious Glow’ May Indicate Evidence of Parallel Universes, Mysterious Universe, 5 November 2015. Return to text
  3. Bradley, G., Cosmologist Rang-Ray Chary claims for evidence of parallel universe, NYC Today, 8 November 2015. Return to text
  4. Hartnett, J.G., ‘Light from the big bang’ casts no shadows, Creation 37(1):50–51, 2015. Return to text

The great commission tells us to preach the Gospel to every nation. We might not be able to go there in the flesh but this site can penetrate every country on the globe. Help the world find 'creation'. Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Jimmy C., United States, 12 December 2015

Could this be the beginning of the end? Revelation 19:11 states "And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war." (NASB)

Could God be opening an entrance into the universe to once again step into time bring his justice to bear?

Don Batten responds

God is already 'in' the universe; He does not need to open a way in. He who created everything is not limited by needing some 'porthole' to enter it. Jesus "upholds the universe by the word of His power" (Hebrews 1:3). God is omnipresent, meaning He is everywhere.

The point of this article is that the claim is unscientific and extremely conjectural.

Errol B., Australia, 11 December 2015

Before Hubble’s discovery was published in 1929, Arthur Eddington predicted the temperature of space around galaxies to be about 3 degrees K but Gamow’s predictions were all over the place, first 5 K then 50 K. This shows the CMB prediction was not specific & that alone must be embarrassing for the likes of deGrasse Tyson. However, according to Edward L. Wright, See [link deleted per feedback rules]~wright/Eddington-T0.html Gamow did predict the bump to be in the correct part of the spectrum, i.e.- the correct wavelength (microwave). This aspect of Gamow’s prediction might be more specific but I suspect this is not exclusive. It would be nice to know if there is any other known cosmic source that would likely produce the same kind of bump in the spectrum. Love your articles Dr Hartnett.

John Hartnett responds

Eddington's prediction in 1926 was on the radiation temperature of space within the Galaxy and based on an optical radiation field not microwave. So his 3 K temperature was a coincidence, not a prediction of the CMB.

In 1941 Andrew McKellar actually detected the presence of CMB microwave radiation, and calculated a temperature 2.3 degrees, using optical spectroscopy on absorption lines in diatomic cyanogen (CN) in interstellar space. But the significance was not realised back then, and possibly due to the obscure journal he published in and the start of WWII, it was not well known.

In 1955 Fred Hoyle and others knew the energy density in space from the radiation derived from conversion of one quarter of all hydrogen to helium in the cosmos. Thomas Gold was in favour of a thermalised background, because natural processes always tend to degrade the quality of energy. But Fred Hoyle and Herman Bondi had no idea of any thermalising agent at that time. Had they made the connection they would have obtained a temperature of 2.74 K in 1955. It was in 1982 E.L. Wright suggested that metallic whiskers might be the cause of large infrared emissions from interstellar gas clouds. Hoyle wrote in 2000 that this was his thermalising agent. But the energy density at infrared wavelengths is estimated by Wright to be much lower than that of the CMB.

The sources of radiation in the cosmos, besides the CMB, are well approximated by a blackbody spectrum. Galaxies, stars emit light at optical wavelengths, infrared etc and we see such spectra. But if your question is, are there alternate sources that could produce the same microwave spectrum as that of the CMB, then Hoyle would have said yes. He put it down to thermalised starlight. But the main question is not what the source is but is it evidence of the big bang? Is it leftover residual radiation of the big bang? We may not know exactly the source but observations suggest it is not from the most "background" source, thus not from the big bang fireball at all. Read ‘Light from the big bang’ casts no shadows, Creation magazine 37(1):50-51, 2015. Or this here.

murk P., Canada, 9 December 2015

Thank you for bringing this to the world's attention.

is a parallel universe not something that is invoked to explain what cannot happen here?

In fact it stems from the atheistic immoral position that anything can happen.

Since this is clearly not the case in our universe let's pretend that there are infinite ones where up is down and princesses really do live happily ever after.

Laws that govern matter thus do not apply so the thing would not be detectable.

In addition a redefinition of universe is required since it means to turn as one not many.

professing to be wise they became fools

sad indeed

Stephen H., United States, 9 December 2015

When I was an Isra (a type of moderator) on an Israel chat site on the old AOL, one of our standard chat line guests asked a guest speaker, a famous Jewish Cosmologist, who had been making a comparison of Genesis' six days of creation in terms of Big Bang time, "WHAT DOES THE KABALLAH SAY ABOUT THE BIG BANG."

I'm sorry but I JUST HAD TO DO IT.

I interrupted with, "KABOOM?"

There may be 30 minutes of silence in heaven but I knew there was about a minute of silence on the chat site until a list of "LOL" lit up the screen from the other guests. This is a true story, I was Isra Melach.

Robert B., United States, 8 December 2015

It seems to me, that a sky full of diffuse matter with an average temperature of 2.725K and a large enough average particle size to emit in the 2 mm wavelengths would create the same radiation as the CMB.

Pardon my ignorance, but is there any evidence that rules out the possibility that the CMB is just being emitted by cold, interstellar matter that is fairly close to us in the Milky Way?

Don Batten responds

Good thoughts. see Planck sees big bang? (and other CMBR articles on creation.com).

Hans G., Australia, 8 December 2015

For how long do those cosmologist study? 3-4 years?

It takes 4 sec to read the first sentence of the creator's book, there it is, the parallel 'universe' and the light source is revealed in this book as well.

Don Batten responds

A Ph.D. normally takes a minimal total of seven years, including an honours degree to start with, but often longer. However, it does not matter how long someone studies for; if they have the wrong starting point, that the universe began with no causal agent (no supernatural Creator), then they will never arrive at an accurate understanding of the universe. That's the problem.

Terry D P., Australia, 7 December 2015

So near, yet so far from discovering a true parallel universe…

THEN I SAW a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had vanished, and there was no longer any sea. — Rev§21:1

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Copied to clipboard
10510
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.