December 7th, 2012, 11:23 AM
Our Universe accepted by mainstream is a 4D shape of 10 exp + 27 metters (arround 90 billions ly of diameter)....how we could detect signals from outside this limit scale...from others universes out :
- by EM waves : detecting EM waves larger than wavelegnth of 10 exp + 25 metters?
- by Gravitional waves originated by Big-bangs of other universes out of Our universe?
- Other methodes or technologies?
i would apreciate all yours reasonable ideas, opinions and proposals....thanks
George S. Patton
Ralph Waldo Emerson
EM waves larger than wavelegnth of 10 exp + 25 metters? Nope, that light would be so weak that it would be several orders of size smaller then the background radiation. Besides, it would be too big to observe.
Gravitational waves are already being searched for.
But the idea is a little further. The idea is widely discussed here: http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...en-system.html
Yet another thread on exactly the same thing?
Originally Posted by Kerling
NO...there are not talking about technologies...they talk about if the Universe is open or closed...it is different...one think is the concept open-closed ...and another how to detect entities out of our universe.
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Do you think that gravitional waves from other universes could be detected ?
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
This is just another thread covering the same dapifo ideas.
Merge them.
Since today...any comment, idea, proposal, thread, post,... about any thing concerning to entities, universes, waves,...beings,... from out side of Our Universe (our scale range, spectrum, strip,...) will be THE DAPIFO IDEAS...(unproven) PROPOSALS, THEORIES,... fantasies, follies, eccentricities, ...
Hwo would like to play with them???
AlexG...ever looked beyond the tip of your nose? ... and have you seen anything?... besides to playing guitar on a flying carpet .... and criticizing others ...
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
As we have already established beyond doubt that there can be no communication between other universes (if such things exist) what is the point of asking if they can be detected?
Why not start a thread on whether Orcs, magic or chronosynclastic infundibula can be detected?
Why are you so sure..that there can be no communication between other universes?..I don´t see so clear...As we have already established beyond doubt that there can be no communication between other universes (if such things exist) what is the point of asking if they can be detected?
Because you say that other universes ( if they exist) they would be moving away us at a speed greater than the speed of light...but:
- If they eist before our big-bang...then the wavws already exist... and possible now are crosing our universe...
Why do yuo supose that out our universe...other universes will be also expanding?...
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Because that would imply hat other universe was part of the observable universe and therefore would not be another universe; it would just be part of this universe.
OK. You can make up anything you want if you are not interested in what science actually says about the universe.If they eist before our big-bang...
That is not true..."that would imply that some waves of these universes get in the "our" OBSERVABLE universe"...Because that would imply hat other universe was part of the observable universe and therefore would not be another universe; it would just be part of this universe.
"
But, please, if other universes exist out there...The most probable is that they had the Big-bang before Our Universe....and then the waves were already existing...and possibly crossing our universe...
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Maybe you need to define more precisely what you mean by "our universe" and "other universes". And how part of another universe can be inside our observable universe.
OK...Maybe you need to define more precisely what you mean by "our universe" and "other universes". And how part of another universe can be inside our observable universe.
Our Universe (bubble) is the whole 4D space-time Universe (4D Möbius Toro or 4D Klein bottle ) where we are...it is aprox 50 billion yl of radius...
Observabe Universe (sphere) is all those signals, info, waves that we detect from the point were we are...so it is all the things there were within a sphere of radius 13.700 millions yl... but there could be also signals, waves,...coming from very faster distances (from other universes big-bangs outside of Our Universe) but that arrive to a smaller distace (less than radius 13.700 millions yl) during the last 13.700 millions years....
Other Universes (other bubbles)...Universes similars to our universe outside of our universe...within a 5D space-time...the Multiverse (aprox = 10 exp +11 universes?)
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
That's just the observable universe, 46 billion ly in radius. The whole of our universe could be any size larger and filled with the same kind of stuff doing the same kind of thing as the universe over in these here parts. The whole universe is whatever is causally connected to the same Big-Bang as we are causally connected to, and it can be any size larger than our observable part of it.
That's still just our observable universe, which is 13.7 billion years old, but has a current radius of 46 billion light-years due to the expansion of the universe since the Big-Bang. The whole of our "bubble" universe, causally connected to our Big-Bang, could be any size larger than this.
If other universes exist, they would not be causally connected to our own, and therefore we would have no way to detect them.
Escusssme , but it is clear that you're totally confused ... have quite a mess in your head .... it would be better for you to read a little more carefully and quietly the contents of my post ... and meditate ... and maybe you can understand ...be luck!That's just the observable universe, 46 billion ly in radius. The whole of our universe could be any size larger and filled with the same kind of stuff doing the same kind of thing as the universe over in these here parts. The whole universe is whatever is causally connected to the same Big-Bang as we are causally connected to, and it can be any size larger than our observable part of it.
That's still just our observable universe, which is 13.7 billion years old, but has a current radius of 46 billion light-years due to the expansion of the universe since the Big-Bang. The whole of our "bubble" universe, causally connected to our Big-Bang, could be any size larger than this.
If other universes exist, they would not be causally connected to our own, and therefore we would have no way to detect them.
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
And, for the benefit of dapifo, being causally disconnected is the definition of another universe.
If I have to choose between SpeedFreek and the deluded imaginings of someone with approximately zero knowledge of either science or mathematics (*) I will go with SpeedFreek every time.
He said pretty much everything I would have said. If it hadn't become obvious that attempting to explain anything to you is a waste of time.
(*) That is you, by the way.
Please, give a reasoned and clear answer to Technologies to wider the current limmits of Our UniverseAnd, for the benefit of dapifo, being causally disconnected is the definition of another universe.
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
No. What is clear is that you are totally confusing well established terminology with your own pet definitions of things.
You seem to think that nothing outside of our observable universe can be part of our universe, according to your own definitions.
If we live in a bubble universe then, according to inflationary theory, our observable universe is only a small fraction of the bubble.
STRAGE could you introduce your self and your background on physics?..are you autodidact...isn´t it?If I have to choose between SpeedFreek and the deluded imaginings of someone with approximately zero knowledge of either science or mathematics (*) I will go with SpeedFreek every time.
He said pretty much everything I would have said. If it hadn't become obvious that attempting to explain anything to you is a waste of time.
(*) That is you, by the way.
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
See post #14.Please, give a reasoned and clear answer to Technologies to wider the current limmits of Our UniverseAnd, for the benefit of dapifo, being causally disconnected is the definition of another universe.
Please, read again and slowly my post Technologies to wider the current limmits of Our UniverseNo. What is clear is that you are totally confusing well established terminology with your own pet definitions of things.
You seem to think that nothing outside of our observable universe can be part of our universe, according to your own definitions.
If we live in a bubble universe then, according to inflationary theory, our observable universe is only a small fraction of the bubble.
and then give a reasoned answer....but first introduce your self and your studies and curren job...student?
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
That's the size of the OBSERVABLE universe, not the whole universe which took part in the Big-Bang. The whole universe is thought to be many magnitudes larger than our observable part of it. Here, I am describing our current cosmology.
We cannot.
If those signals do not show up in the Cosmic Microwave Background (which is the light that has taken the longest time to reach us), then the expansion of the universe since the CMB was released will have taken those signals away from us and the subsequent accelerating expansion means they will never get here.
I have read it and already given a reasoned answer. What is it about my reasons that you object to?
What has that got to do with anything? It is a logical fallacy to appeal to a higher authority. Credentials mean nothing, it is the science that counts. Einstein was an accountant.
But if you want to go down that route, then what are your studies and current job, and how does that affect anything you say here?
OK you are right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observa...iverse....Then which is the expectec dimension of Our Universe: The whole Universe generated with the big-bang?That's the size of the OBSERVABLE universe, not the whole universe which took part in the Big-Bang. The whole universe is thought to be many magnitudes larger than our observable part of it. Here, I am describing our current cosmology.
If before the big-bang there was existing waves (EM or Grvitional)...now this wves could be crossing Our OBSERVABLE Universe, and could detect them ...We cannot.
If those signals do not show up in the Cosmic Microwave Background (which is the light that has taken the longest time to reach us), then the expansion of the universe since the CMB was released will have taken those signals away from us and the subsequent accelerating expansion means they will never get here.
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
That is not possible for fairly obvious reasons.
Why you don´t whant to introduce your self?...Just tell to me : Are yo Universitary Physics (y or n?), currently (studing, teaching or other)...
What has that got to do with anything? It is a logical fallacy to appeal to a higher authority. Credentials mean nothing, it is the science that counts. Einstein was an accountant.
But if you want to go down that route, then what are your studies and current job, and how does that affect anything you say here?
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
None of the above.
I am but an interested amateur, whose main hobby over the past decade has been to study cosmology and the principles behind it, in as rigorous a manner as I can. I have studied the recent history of cosmology, leading up to the current Lambda-CDM concordance model. I stick to learning from sources that have used the scientific method and have had papers published in reputable journals. I have attained a pretty robust layman's view of both relativity and cosmology.
See section 1 of the wiki page you quoted for a much better explanation than I can fit in here:
Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is a small quote:
That's the whole universe that took part in the same Big-Bang as the part we live in, being a minimum of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than our observable universe, and all causally connected to it.According to the theory of cosmic inflation and its founder, Alan Guth, if it is assumed that inflation began aboutseconds after the Big Bang, then with the plausible assumption that the size of the universe at this time was approximately equal to the speed of light times its age, that would suggest that at present the entire universe's size is at least
times larger than the size of the observable universe.
Well, the thing is, if that were the case before the inflationary epoch, those waves would have been stretched so much by cosmic inflation as to be undetectable today, having wavelengths measured in percentages of the size of the observable universe! This is an epoch in which fluctuations at the quantum scale were magnified into the seeds of large scale structure (galactic clusters) later on.
We see the imprints of those quantum fluctuations in the slight anisotropies of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. This radiation was released at a time when the universe was expanding rapidly. If another universe had been able to interact with ours somehow at this time (remembering that the whole universe is always many magnitudes larger than our observable part of it, due to the expansion) we would have to be very close to the place where the two universes interacted, otherwise the light/radiation/information could never reach us here, due the expansion. But the thing is, we don't think the universe has an edge, as such. I don't think bubble universe theories allow those bubbles to interact.
OK Speedfreek I see that you are autodidact...and you don´t have any universitary studies. I doesn- t matter...you can have very good info although possible not enough structured... and calcul based....A lot of readed and stored info...but less analysis and criticism capacity... I am Industrial Engineer...
You show to me that Observable universe is larger than I thought...and also that the (OUR) Universe could be larger (but wiky say that could be also smaller).. I agree to you.
Really this time you response in a reasonable way...
But I don´t know how do you claim so clear that ..."those waves would have been stretched so much by cosmic inflation as to be undetectable today"...which are your physics bases to say this?
And also ... why do you say " we don't think the universe has an edge, as such" (Who is we?...mainstream?)
Do you agree with the theories that says that OUR Universe is a 4D space-time Universe (4D Möbius Toro or 4D Klein bottle )?....then it hasn´t 2D edges. (as the surface of an sphere 3D)..but yes 3D (within 4D space-time).
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
The current mainstream cosmology includes inflationary theory as part of the Big-Bang, and the stretching would have occurred during the inflationary epoch, which is theorised to have occurred within the first fraction of a second after the Big-Bang. An imprint of the results of inflation would be visible in the cosmic microwave background.
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[astro-ph/0305179] Inflation and the Cosmic Microwave Background
Yes, when I use "we" I mean the scientific knowledge of the human race. The mainstream view.
Shape of the Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Edge of the Universe
Yes to the 4D space-time, but the topologies you mentioned are not 4D in quite the same way, you cannot directly compare them like that. Time is the fourth (pseudo) dimension in 4D space-time, it is not another spatial dimension. A possible finite topology for a flat universe like ours is a 3-Torus, which is a 3 dimensional surface, but it does not need to reside in a higher dimension. Curvature and expansion are treated as intrinsic properties.
If there were a higher dimension that our universe were embedded in, we would never be able to detect it from the lower dimensions of our universe, wherever we were in the universe.
If you want to think in these terms then what you need to understand is that the whole universe constitutes a surface that is continuous in every dimension. If we take the sphere as an example, the universe might exist as the surface of a 3-sphere, where that surface is spherical in all directions. However far you travel in any direction, you end up back where you started! This is what cosmologists mean when they say the universe doesn't have an edge.
[astro-ph/0604616] Extending the WMAP Bound on the Size of the Universe
.While it is certainly possible that the Universe extends infinitely in each spatial direction, many physicists and philosophers are uncomfortable with the notion of a universe that is infinite in extent. It is possible instead that our three dimensional Universe has a finite volume without having an edge, just as the two dimensional surface of the Earth is finite but has no edge. In such a universe, it is possible that a straight path in one direction could eventually lead back to where it started. For a short enough closed path, we expect to be able to detect an observational signature revealing the specific topology of our Universe
AlexG...which is your backgroud?...are you able to tell us it?...or not?
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
What do you mean by the stretching of the allready existing waves?..that they will be take off...moved...brocked,...
OK we can talk about 3D space within 4D space-time....But really you need a 3D space to forsee a 2D space within a 3D space...like a 3-Torus, which is a 3 dimensional surface...to realize the 2D surface of a 3-Torus you need a 3D space.
Yes to the 4D space-time, but the topologies you mentioned are not 4D in quite the same way, you cannot directly compare them like that. Time is the fourth (pseudo) dimension in 4D space-time, it is not another spatial dimension. A possible finite topology for a flat universe like ours is a 3-Torus, which is a 3 dimensional surface, but it does not need to reside in a higher dimension. Curvature and expansion are treated as intrinsic properties.
I agree with you...only in the experimental way...but possible yes in theoretical one......Like we are able to realize the 6D Calabi-yau shapes...
Ok..yes I understand that we are in a "closed path"....but to know it and what there is out...we can understand better OUR UNIVERSE...I am sure that during the next years the "range" of OUR UNIVERSE (since 10^´35 to 10^+26 meters) wil be wider...If you want to think in these terms then what you need to understand is that the whole universe constitutes a surface that is continuous in every dimension. If we take the sphere as an example, the universe might exist as the surface of a 3-sphere, where that surface is spherical in all directions. However far you travel in any direction, you end up back where you started! This is what cosmologists mean when they say the universe doesn't have an edge.
.While it is certainly possible that the Universe extends infinitely in each spatial direction, many physicists and philosophers are uncomfortable with the notion of a universe that is infinite in extent. It is possible instead that our three dimensional Universe has a finite volume without having an edge, just as the two dimensional surface of the Earth is finite but has no edge. In such a universe, it is possible that a straight path in one direction could eventually lead back to where it started. For a short enough closed path, we expect to be able to detect an observational signature revealing the specific topology of our Universe
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
I have a degree in physics which is now 40 years old, and I've been a mainframe programmer for those 40 years.
You claim to be an engineer. Sanitary engineer?
Stretched: made longer. So if the wavelength was 1 m as the big bang was starting it would be at least 1078m at the end of inflation and even bigger now.
As SpeedFreek noted, the quantum fluctuations (i.e. smaller than an atom) were stretched to form the large scale structures in the universe (galactic clusters, superclusters, walls, voids, filaments, etc) which are hundreds of millions of light years in size.
Ok...that is agood background...I have a degree in physics which is now 40 years old, and I've been a mainframe programmer for those 40 years.
You claim to be an engineer. Sanitary engineer?
I´m Industrial Engineer...for main energy and environment projects (Hydrpower, biodiessel, FV, windpower,..
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
OK thanks strange...but then if the EM wave was 10^-26 meters....now couls be of 1 meter (!!)Stretched: made longer. So if the wavelength was 1 m as the big bang was starting it would be at least 1078m at the end of inflation and even bigger now.
As SpeedFreek noted, the quantum fluctuations (i.e. smaller than an atom) were stretched to form the large scale structures in the universe (galactic clusters, superclusters, walls, voids, filaments, etc) which are hundreds of millions of light years in size.
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
More like 1055 meters (or something).
OK..right...but if the wave was 10^-78 metters (if there exist them??)...then yes now they will be 1 meter...More like 1055 meters (or something).
...Why they cannot exist?...only because we have not been able to detect them till now?...but theoretically ther are possible...but undetectable !!!
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
I work in CAD/CAM.
Actually, you do not need a higher dimension to realise a lower dimensional surface. It might help with visualisation, but it isn't required in physics or mathematics. That is what "intrinsic" curvature means.
You like the Calabi-Yau manifold, don't you.
I agree with you...only in the experimental way...but possible yes in theoretical one......Like we are able to realize the 6D Calabi-yau shapes...This is used in superstring theory, but all those extra dimensions are compactified below observable lengths, so we cannot see them. There is no suggestion of the universe being "embedded" in the way you might think.
This will only be the case if we can detect events that occurred earlier in the history of the universe than we can presently detect, way back before the recombination era, when the CMB was released.
Ok...STRANGE and SPEEDFREEK you give to me a very good idea !!!!!
If the Stretched theory is good anr true ... It will mean that any wave (EM, Gravitational...and also strong & weak fields waves) will make longer 10 ^78 times !!!
So as now we are able to detect waves of wavelegth between 10^-12 to 10^+12 meters... then we also could detect waves that were between 10^-90 to 10^-66 meters in the Big-Bang instant....and possible also all the range between those and the current normal waves....
How we could distigish betwee the normal waves and the old (stretched) waves?
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Well, the increase in wavelength is not the only problem. We also have the problem that before the CMB was released 370,000 years after the Big-Bang, photons could not move freely through the universe anyway. Everything was so hot and dense that photons could hardly move without hitting something. The universe was opaque.
I don't think it is possible to have electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of. Isn't that smaller than a Planck length?
Either way, it seems to me the answer is that we wouldn't be able to detect the light from another universe if it existed just after the Big-Bang.
But yes...if it existed just before the Big-Bang !!!...wouldn´t we?
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
No, for the same reason. The only reason I said "just after" is because "before" the Big-Bang is undefined.But yes...if it existed just before the Big-Bang !!!...wouldn´t we?
Let's just say that if the light from another universe existed at the Big-Bang, I cannot see how we would be able to detect it, now.
Very easy...if yo have a EM wave of 10^-80 meters wavelength....now it will be of 10^-2 meters....and we could detect...No, for the same reason. The only reason I said "just after" is because "before" the Big-Bang is undefined.But yes...if it existed just before the Big-Bang !!!...wouldn´t we?
Let's just say that if the light from another universe existed at the Big-Bang, I cannot see how we would be able to detect it, now.
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
But 10^-80 meters is smaller than a plank length. How could light from another universe have a wavelength smaller than a planck length?
Don´t say it LIGHT...it is just a wave (EM, strong-weak field, others,...) with a very small wavelength...that we cannot detect now...but if it Stretched during the Big-Bang till nowadays....we could detect now !!!!
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
As I already said earlier:
I don't think it is possible to have electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of
Technology is a tool to meet our needs but it is just a branch of our perception. An idea that becomes reality. But before that or the idea, many wave lengths occur in our mind and the physical world we live in making the universe grow. Ideas come from the nothing to the possible
Are you phylosopher?.....do you read the thread from the begining?...have you any idea?
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
| « Moon | Meteor showers » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
2Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
