Other Universes - Bubble Universes

[plat]

Aside from us having ZERO evidence...do you think that there are other universes out there, they say that if Inflation Theory is correct (which most scientists seem to think so) that our universe is just one of many other "bubble" universe out there?<br /><br />Maybe when this universe time is up (22-24 billion years from now), we might be able to travel to other universes (I have no idea how) but of course other universes might have a diferent set of law's so we would have to send a probe in to find out if we could enter it safely and survive<br /><br />Yeah its cool to ponder about this

 

[plat]

Aside from us having ZERO evidence...do you think that there are other universes out there, they say that if Inflation Theory is correct (which most scientists seem to think so) that our universe is just one of many other "bubble" universe out there? <br /><br />Maybe when this universe time is up (22-24 billion years from now), we might be able to travel to other universes (I have no idea how) but of course other universes might have a diferent set of law's so we would have to send a probe in to find out if we could enter it safely and survive <br /><br />Yeah its cool to ponder about this<br /> <br />

 

[plat]

HELLO?

 

[rogers_buck]

I believe Hawking has shown that the universe inflated all at once and that bubbles were not really possible in the quantum gravitation model for inflation. Reference Steven Hawking "Life's Work". I don't know if this was the last word on the matter, but I haven;t seen anthing myself that refutes Hawkings arguments against bubbles as proposed by the russians. Did I miss something?<br /><br />Scientific American about a year ago LINK had an excellent article on multiple universes. The article covered bubbles, p-branes, and a couple of other possible earth clone scenarios. The earth clone scenarios were interesting because they related to the sheer size of the universe and the probabilities that particles at great distances might have exactly the same quantum states - aka earth clone.<br /><br />My favorite multi-verse is found in M-theory which allows for p-branes to exist in higher order dimensions that can be equally vast as our own. Reference Green "The Fabric of the Cosmos." One possible explanation for dark matter is that it is gravitational effects of objects in an adjacent brane spilling over into our brane. That gravity is as powerfull a force as electro-magnetic force but because it extends into higher dimensions we only see part of the force in our universe. That possibility seems compelling since in principle we could travel to such a universe using a worm-hole.<br /><br />What would happen to us in another universe is an interesting question. Our bodies and minds are evolved to work with entropy and the arrow of time having a specific direction. If we were to appear in an adjacent universe with a different entropy field would our cellular machinery still work? If time

 

[plat]

I dont think Stephen Hawking is against bubble universes as he seems to support it on his website

 

[alkalin]

Other bubble universes?? What about rain drop universes? Or any other ones?<br /><br />So many possibilities. What if there are other bubbles that have some different (science) physics as we know them? Compared to future knowledge, perhaps, that we could posses in a thousand years or more???? What if some of these other universes have a different material physics. Or laws?......or biology?...or any combination?? Again, as we think of them in a thousand years from now?? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, although it may sound like it. It’s just that this kind of topic is so speculative..............perhaps ripe for the entertainment business.<br /><br />It seems to me very disconcerting we may ask questions such as this, even though we have not come very close to understanding what it is we live in all around us.<br /><br />Seek truth of the universe and universes that exist that we do have evidence of. The answers will come to you.<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

I'll check it out, thanks. Do you have a link handy to his site?

 

[plat]

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/infla.html

 

[centsworth_II]

I think it all boils down to this:<br />If there is only one universe, It had to be created by a GOD <b>unless</b> in some unknown way involving only physical laws, this one universe was destined to be in a form amenable to the origin of life.<br /><br />Otherwise, multiple (verging on infinity) universes are <b>required</b> to explain the occurence of at least one universe in which the physical laws allow for the origin of life.<br /><br />Without driving myself crazy with all the theories, I personally favor the multiple universe solution. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

Thanks for the link. The page describes the phase change model for symetry breaking in a super cooled inflationary universe based on Guth. It doesn't mention chaotic inflation anywhere.<br /><br />So, I'm a bit perplexed.<br /><br />Bubles of the new phase of broken symetry would appear in the old phase like bubles of steam in water, the assumption was that bubblew would merge to form our universe. Hawking showed that the universe was expanding so fast that the bubles would be moving away from each other too fast to join up. Andre Linda proposed that if the bubbles were very big and so that our region of the universe could be contained in a single buble they could join up. For that to occur the sumettry breaking would have to be slow. Hawking showed that this required that the bublles be larger than the actual universe and that joining bubbles would produce a different CBR than is observed. Hawking showed that the symetry would break everywhere at once. Reference Hawking "The Theory of Everything".<br /><br />Linda then introduced the chaotic inflationary model that eliminated the phase transition. But the web site appears to be associating bubles with Guth which pre-dated Linda's observation and doesn't mention chaotic inflation.<br /><br />The bubbles would be larger than the size of the universe <br /><br />at the same time. He showed that symetry would be broken at the same time<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[rogers_buck]

If you take sum over histories into consideration, the universe could well be ended by a god which would explain our universe and history. If you imagine that the god was a technology created by a evolved civilization that directly engineered the final quantum states of the universe then history at any point in imaginary time would look like what we percieve to be reality. You had to create the wheel before the rotating space station, etc..<br /><br />In the preface to his book 3010 Clarke mentioned that the creators of the monoliths developed technology to engineer the vacuum. This kind of technology can be extrapolated to ultimately encompass the entire universe and all the information that it contains. In effect, the ultimate evolution for such an information storage system would be the final states of the universe. At anypoint in imaginary time you would find the citizens of that universe at an appropriate level of industriousness making their ultimate end a reality.<br /><br />To paraphrase, "In the end, man created god".

 

[alkalin]

It may be very difficult to even ‘experience’ a small part of reality because our sense organs are so limited. They are basic to evolutionary biological survival, but sometimes to intellectual survival as well.<br /><br />But they at least allow us to form a view of reality that we experience. Vewy, vewy limited. Maybe we should go wabbit hunting to find our next meal. <br /><br />In the end, maybe man presupposes God for the sake of ultimate survival.<br /><br />Yet the next wabbit hunt isn’t necessarily anything like our reality.<br />

 

[plat]

Hello?

 

[plat]

<b>"The bubbles would be larger than the size of the universe."</b><br /><br />Yeah, this is the standard version of the Bubble Universe Theory which is an extension of the Inflation Theory

 

[jmeyer]

I think it is cool to ponder as well. In fact, just as there is no proof of these other universes, I like to remind myself that there is also no proof to suggest there isn't.<br /><br />I'll go as far to say that if there are other universes, multiverse, etc, I'd be willing to bet that an explanation to dark energy is in there somewhere.<br /><br />Think of soap bubbles going down a drain. They all seem to have a domino effect on each other. <br /><br />My questions are: Are the universes sticking to each other like said soap bubbles? <br /><br />Are they drifting away from each other like the galaxies are? Or are they returning from a big crunch? Was our own big bang the result of another universe's crunch? OR if there is a big crunch, does there have to be a bang to coordinate and create balance?<br /><br />If so, could there be a "darker" energy causing this? And if so, what is keeping this "darker" energy in line?<br /><br />So many questions I could ask.

 

[plat]

yeah its cool but pointless at the same time<br /><br /><i>our</i> universe is lame though it seems like its going to expand forever and that doesnt sit well with me

 

[plat]

back to the first page

 

[rogers_buck]

Apart from doing an odd Elmer Fudd impression, Alkalin is correct I think. Now imagine for a moment that our universe isn't quite the way we know it to be. <br /><br />We live in the here and now with the technology tools that we know in the culture that we know. All the time inventions are popping up and new discoveries are being made that build on the past.<br /><br />Now let's look at that from a different perspective. Suppose something changes the entropy of the future universe. All histories of everything in the universe back to the initial conditions would have a new set of probabilities reflective of the change. If the change is technological in nature, then it follows that the relevant histories of technologies would change.<br /><br />These may seem like different sides of the same coin, but I would argue that they are not. Since histories are taken in imaginary time they are not constrained by our perception of time as an asymnetric vector. <br /><br />An extreme set of examples of this would be that we started our lives painting on the walls of caves, but thanks to our inventive future selves we now use computers. Because of our evolved way of thinking, we can only percieve the current histories with the highest probabilities as our reality. We use computers, weve used them for years, we know where they came from. We know cave men painted on the walls of caves.<br /><br />Another extreme example is that we would have no knowledge that we died because the apendectomy had not yet been invented because we remember that it ws invented and we had an opertaion that saved our life.<br /><br />As the "inventions" keep flowing back in time, pretty soon the pond scum that made the first ribosomal life gets it together a few seconds earlier. The dead branches of our familly tree are pruned back and our written history looks a good deal less chaotic if we were to retain our present day mindset when reading it with entropy changing around us. The wrong histories are

 

[plat]

<b>"So in effect, there are infinite many universes and we commute them continuopusly without being aware of it."</b><br /><br />I agree<br /><br />and also what do you guys think of the membrane stuff....ekpyrotic theory

 

[rogers_buck]

Here's a link to the paper and Space.com did a good article on the subject a while back. The theory is pretty new and seems to be hotly debated as to whether it meets the observed CBR as it claims. I'm not sure if it has been dealt a fatal blow as yet.<br /><br />I don't believe that M-Theory is fundamentally in conflict with quantum-field theory/inflation to my knowledge. I was thinking that M-Theory might provide a possible explanation for the super-cooling mechanism rather than a whole new theory to replace Guth.<br /><br />Maybe a hybrid of the two ideas? The highly ordered universe was being squeezed by two adjacent branes that rebounded by the negative tension but didn't merge, sort of thing.<br /><br />We'll have to see how this turns out. Perhaps we might get some meaningfull CBR gravitational wave data someday that will decide either or niether...

 

[alkalin]

During reading your link I think our wabbit hunt ended in a catastrophe of endless and needless weeds.<br /><br />Don’t take me too seriously though, I feel sure there is a wabbit hidden in there yet, just keep hunting.<br /><br />I’m getting a little hungry, so when I find one do I bounce the wabbit off the side of the barn a few times to get it’s attention first??<br /><br />Oops, the wabbit outsmarted me again and got away!!! I must have woke it up. I don’t blame it one little bit for escaping.<br /><br />But if we go on a duck hunt, we could end up in never ending razor swamp grass too. At least it sure seems like it when you are tired and hungry.<br /><br />I’m not sure you experienced this for real, but the ‘hunt’ usually produces many more skunks than you can imagine. If you want one, you are welcome to it. Just that you might not have many friends.<br />

 

[plat]

yeah, anymore insights on brane theory? whatchu think of it?

 

[rogers_buck]

He just told us what he thinks of it. I believe he is in agreement with the comments that I made. But a good question is if there is really a need to go hunting when you are not yet hungry? Sometimes that produces waste and you might eat too much of the wrong animal before finding out its a skunk if the chef is expert at deception. Or, as in all the flavors of string theory, you might find out its the same animal and your hunt did a better job than you thought killing wabits.<br /><br />Why are we talking like this?

 

[plat]

why are you talking about animals?

 

[rogers_buck]

I don't know. My animals are cosmologies. His change from animals, to branes, to cosmologies - I think... A skunk being a bad cosmology. The hunt, is the hunt. His weeds are CBR irregularities. His duck is a different type of theory. Or, maybe he's just jerking our chain.