NO BIG BANG ? BIG BUBBLE?

[mr_mark]

I recently heard of a theory on phase 2 dimensional universes where our universe is more like a bubble in space and that there could be many more universe bubbles out there. This seems very logical to me. What do you guys think about this concept?

 

[DrRocket]

I recently heard of a theory on phase 2 dimensional universes where our universe is more like a bubble in space and that there could be many more universe bubbles out there. This seems very logical to me. What do you guys think about this concept?

I think the idea needs to be stated more clearly and precisely. The term "phase 2 dimensional universe" has no meaning.

Speculation on anything outside of our universe, like other universes, it not testable since the universe, is by definition (unless you change the definition and then you are obligated to provide a new one) the whole enchilada as far as we or anything else in the universe is concerned.

It cannot be logical unless it is formulated in terms that are, in principle, capable of being falsified.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Yep. It's really just an intriguing speculation. Kind of like infinite progression and regression was back in the day before quarks, string theory, and Planck lengths. (Also untestable, btw, so far. String theory, ie)

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I guess the only way to prove if there are other universes is "IF" we could visually see beyond the edge "if there is one" of this universe. I know the further out in space we look, the further back in time we are looking... however if we become capable of looking deep enough, will we see the beginning of another universe? or nothingness? I heard there theory of multiple universes back when I was in high school. An astronomer had actually come into our class and explained this theory. At the time he explained as they looked at one point of the sky, beyond a group of stars was a great void... on the other side of this void began another aged group of stars. I guess at the time they figured this might have been an indication of peering past an edge of the universe we live in, across a void that seemed to divide our universe from another, and seeing a few stars in the other. However this was back in 1996. We've come so much further since then. Now we know there are vast voids within our own universe, so perhaps the theory at that time was disproven and disregarded as new discoveries were made.

 

[DrRocket]

I guess the only way to prove if there are other universes is "IF" we could visually see beyond the edge "if there is one" of this universe. I know the further out in space we look, the further back in time we are looking... however if we become capable of looking deep enough, will we see the beginning of another universe? or nothingness? I heard there theory of multiple universes back when I was in high school. An astronomer had actually come into our class and explained this theory. At the time he explained as they looked at one point of the sky, beyond a group of stars was a great void... on the other side of this void began another aged group of stars. I guess at the time they figured this might have been an indication of peering past an edge of the universe we live in, across a void that seemed to divide our universe from another, and seeing a few stars in the other. However this was back in 1996. We've come so much further since then. Now we know there are vast voids within our own universe, so perhaps the theory at that time was disproven and disregarded as new discoveries were made.

If you can see it, then it is part of this universe.

 

[mr_mark]

Either way, multiverse or multi regions, it's interesting. Sort of like island universes in a sense. Could our universe have been formed by the collision of 2 other multiverses or island universes?. If so then really no big bang. Just a collission with 2 universes involved making 3. But, how would you account for expansion and background radiation?

 

[DrRocket]

Either way, multiverse or multi regions, it's interesting. Sort of like island universes in a sense. Could our universe have been formed by the collision of 2 other multiverses or island universes?. If so then really no big bang. Just a collission with 2 universes involved making 3. But, how would you account for expansion and background radiation?

That only works if the universe is embedded in something larger and there is some means for interaction with other things inside that something larger. But at that point, where you have causal interactions with something else, you have expanded the "universe" to include that something else.

It is important to recognize that the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics by Hugh Everett, was just that, an interpretation. It provides precisely the same predictions, the same physics, as more conventional interpretations. That interpretation has been blown all out of proportion since then, to no real purpose other than to titillate and sell books.

So far as has been shown everything that affects what happens in the universe as we know it, is itself a part of that universe -- hence the term "universe". That is why it is the "universe" and not just the "neighborhood".

It is important to play this game by the rules, and the rules are physics. If you make up new physics then you can change the rules. But your new rules are not valid unless they are internally consistent and are supported by all of the available physical observations. Otherwise you are engaged in science fiction and not science.

It is even OK to explore new ideas and from them develop logical consequences under the assumption that they are true. But before you actually accept them as true, they need to demonstrate internal consistency and support by all physical observations.. One needs to be very careful with string theories in this regard. It is OK to study them, and to attempt to develop models for observed phenomena. But one must remember that string theory has yet to fill in many many gaps in the theory or to demonstrate accuracy by virtue of experiment. It is still just speculation.

Science fiction is perfectly acceptable as fiction. But you need to distinguish between science fiction and science. If you do then you may be imaginative. If you don't then you may be delusional.

 

[kristina3313]

Either way, multiverse or multi regions, it's interesting. Sort of like island universes in a sense. Could our universe have been formed by the collision of 2 other multiverses or island universes?. If so then really no big bang. Just a collission with 2 universes involved making 3. But, how would you account for expansion and background radiation?

Are you talking about an article in June 2009 Astronomy magazine by Steve Nadis.

"Our universe may form one bubble of many in vast multiverse. Cosmologist are now searching for signs of another bubble universe colliding with ours.... Eternal inflation will keep spinning out bubble universes that differ from each other in their vacuum energies and other physical features..."

If yes, then I am not sure why you came to the conclusion that there was "no big bang", the above article is actually in agreement with the Big Bang theory, it's just "not the instant of creation but a single event in an infinite cycle".

 

[tdl]

Before something can change or be changed, before it can act or be acted upon, something must first exist. This means cause and effect is a function of existence. To claim the universe was created is to claim the opposite - that existence is a function of cause and effect. And the endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy that results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning.

Sorry, the phenomenon of existence is not the result of cause and effect, so the universe didn't "begin". Why don't cosmologists pay attention to the simple guidelines of logic?

PS: Regarding the universe - it has only three dimensional axes (and time is not a dimension), it isn't finite and there's only one of them.

 

[DrRocket]

Before something can change or be changed, before it can act or be acted upon, something must first exist. This means cause and effect is a function of existence. To claim the universe was created is to claim the opposite - that existence is a function of cause and effect. And the endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy that results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning. ]/quote]

This is not logic. It is gibberish. It doesn't even make enough sense to be falsifiable in principle.

]Sorry, the phenomenon of existence is not the result of cause and effect, so the universe didn't "begin". Why don't cosmologists pay attention to the simple guidelines of logic?

They do. `Why don't you ?

PS: Regarding the universe - it has only three dimensional axes (and time is not a dimension), it isn't finite and there's only one of them.

Sorry. Wrong again. The universe is a curved Lorentzian 4-manifold. It does not have a universal coordinate system, so it does not have any axes at all. In local charts there are 3 spatial coordinates and 1 time coordinate. The proper terminology for what is commonly called "finite" is "closed". A closed manifold is a compact manifold without boundary. NOBODY knows if the universe is open or closed. That includes you.

 

[kg]

I think the idea of multiple universes springs from the Copernican view of the world. If you expand the idea that the earth is not the center of the solar system, our sun is only one of billions of stars in the galaxy and that there are billions of galaxys in the universe, you would of course be led to believe that there is nothing special about our universe and that there are many, many other universes out there. Copernicus was led to his conclusions by some good observational data which seems to be lacking in the multi-verse version of reality.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Here is something I have to ask. If Time was included in all the equations regarding the universe and it's expansions, then why can it not be excluded as well? I mean a new equation without the time factor that would actually separate space & Time. Yes, I know quite a bit now about Einstein & Space-Time. Just curious if there is a way to actually part these two, then I guess the conclusion may be Time without space or vice-vera. I know it would quite contradict ALL current theories. But has it been attempted?

 

[SpeedFreek]

Here is something I have to ask. If Time was included in all the equations regarding the universe and it's expansions, then why can it not be excluded as well? I mean a new equation without the time factor that would actually separate space & Time. Yes, I know quite a bit now about Einstein & Space-Time. Just curious if there is a way to actually part these two, then I guess the conclusion may be Time without space or vice-vera. I know it would quite contradict ALL current theories. But has it been attempted?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but how can you examine any sequence of events without considering time? How can you consider the universe and its expansion, without considering time? How can you quantify expansion (increasing distance) without using time in the equation?

 

[DrRocket]

Here is something I have to ask. If Time was included in all the equations regarding the universe and it's expansions, then why can it not be excluded as well? I mean a new equation without the time factor that would actually separate space & Time. Yes, I know quite a bit now about Einstein & Space-Time. Just curious if there is a way to actually part these two, then I guess the conclusion may be Time without space or vice-vera. I know it would quite contradict ALL current theories. But has it been attempted?

You cannot eliminate the concept of time from any consideration of expansion. Expansion is simply a change in volume over TIME. No time, no expansion, no dynamics.

It is possible to separate time from space, sort of.

In local coordinates time is an explicit quantity. For instance, here on earth you have no trouble distinguishing time from height.


Cosmologists use a notion of universal time. but it is predicated on some assumptions that are only large scale approximations. It turns out that if you assume that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic then it is possible to realize the manifold of space-time as a one-parameter family of space-like hypersurfaces that fill out space time -- what mathematicians call a foliation of space-time. It turns out that also that the space-like hypersurfaces are of constant curvature and therefore admit a classification based on the mathematics of Riemannian geometry. That one parameter plays the role of a universal "time". It is this foliation by space-like hypersurfaces of that gives some meaning to "the age of the universe" and shaper or openness or closedness of "space".


Now the universe is not homogeneous and isotropic on small-scales and it is not of constant curvature either, so this is just and approximation. But within that approximation you can create separate notions of "time" and of "space".

 

[ZenGalacticore]

I guess the only way to prove if there are other universes is "IF" we could visually see beyond the edge "if there is one" of this universe. I know the further out in space we look, the further back in time we are looking... however if we become capable of looking deep enough, will we see the beginning of another universe? or nothingness? I heard there theory of multiple universes back when I was in high school. An astronomer had actually come into our class and explained this theory. At the time he explained as they looked at one point of the sky, beyond a group of stars was a great void... on the other side of this void began another aged group of stars. I guess at the time they figured this might have been an indication of peering past an edge of the universe we live in, across a void that seemed to divide our universe from another, and seeing a few stars in the other. However this was back in 1996. We've come so much further since then. Now we know there are vast voids within our own universe, so perhaps the theory at that time was disproven and disregarded as new discoveries were made.

We will never be able to 'see' it. But, and this really blows me away, we may soon be able to reasonably infer higher dimensions.

Say, how's that super-conducting super-collider (HADRON) going on over there in Olde Europe? Have they got it working? Have they fused 'Dimension-4-Man' yet?

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I just asked the question because if there were to be any chance of us finding a way to travel the great distances across the universe, we might perhaps have to look "outside the box" as far as time goes. If there is a way to separate the curvature of space & time, then that might be our key to deep space travel. I'm not talk'in about fiction (ie. the flux capacitor from Back to the future), I'm talk'in true science & mathematical formulas. I know it seems distance cannot be calculated without the time factor as we know it. But an instantaneous movement from one coordinate to another within space-time may have to exclude the time factor to be possible. Of course the BIG IF is there. I know this all seems like fantasy. But to me, it seems that the only way we can think of such great distances being traveled in the future in a humans life-time MUST exclude time as a factor.

Now the universe is not homogeneous and isotropic on small-scales and it is not of constant curvature either, so this is just and approximation. But within that approximation you can create separate notions of "time" and of "space".

Dr. Rocket, you might understand what I mean, but is there any physics theory that MAY make this possible, but has yet to be proven? I mean an actual separation between the curvature of space & time.

 

[DrRocket]

Dr. Rocket, you might understand what I mean, but is there any physics theory that MAY make this possible, but has yet to be proven? I mean an actual separation between the curvature of space & time.

Not likely. Maybe, maybe possible.

There are only two currently viable theories of gravity. One is general relativity. The other is Einstein-Cartan theory. They are theoretically a bit different, but both are based on representing space-time as curvature, and they are experimentally indistinguishable with current measurement technology. So no help there.

What we don't have is a theory that unifies the four known forces, including gravity, a "theory of everything". Whatever such a theory turns out to be, it must agree with general relativity where general relativity is known to be accurate and supported by experimental data. But the experimental data for general relativity is explained in local coordinate systems, and in local coordinate systems one can distinguish time from space at least for a single observer.

So I guess it is conceivable that some future theory might provide some means to clearly distinguish time from space on a global scale. But I rather doubt that this will actually occur. I don't see any indication that it will, and I don't know of any speculation regarding such a theory. Don't' hold your breath.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Okay, I guess I can better explain it this way. Around a black hole we have the "dragging affect". While space still exists, time is dragged around the epicenter (ie. black hole). Now both space & time do exist. But is space-time being dragged, or is space & time dragged at different rates... or even is it possible that space is not dragged at all, but rather the great force merely drags time. of course the same could be said for vice-versa. My point is that "IF" a black hole does managed to make a distinguished differential between space & time, then it may be possible some time in the future for us to duplicate the affect in the curvature of space-time. Far fetched? Yes, at this point it is. As you said, there is no current theory to distinguish space from time. But I do think the secret lies within the instantaneous re-coordination of an object without the time factor. Could the use of the "String theory" shed any light on such a feat?

I've heard the theory of folding the fabric of space-time, but of course it's science-fiction. Moving a craft faster then the speed of light seems out of the question, as mass cannot exceed the speed of light. What about magnetics? A magnetically powered engine would most certainly generate it's own power without running out of fuel. But we will always require repairs at some point.