Notices
Results 1 to 50 of 50
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By SpeedFreek
  • 1 Post By SpeedFreek

Thread: Technologies to wider the current limmits of Our Universe

  1. #1 Technologies to wider the current limmits of Our Universe 
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    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


    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    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


    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Yet another thread on exactly the same thing?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerling View Post
    But the idea is a little further. The idea is widely discussed here: http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...en-system.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Yet another thread on exactly the same thing?
    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.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerling View Post
    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.
    Do you think that gravitional waves from other universes could be detected ?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    This is just another thread covering the same dapifo ideas.

    Merge them.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    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 ...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Do you think that gravitional waves from other universes could be detected ?
    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?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Do you think that gravitional waves from other universes could be detected ?
    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 are you so sure..that there can be no communication between other universes?..I don´t see so clear...

    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?...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Why are you so sure..that there can be no communication between other universes?
    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.

    If they eist before our big-bang...
    OK. You can make up anything you want if you are not interested in what science actually says about the universe.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Why are you so sure..that there can be no communication between other universes?
    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.
    That is not true..."that would imply that some waves of these universes get in the "our" OBSERVABLE universe"...
    "
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    If they eist before our big-bang...
    OK. You can make up anything you want if you are not interested in what science actually says about the 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...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    That is not true..."that would imply that some waves of these universes get in the "our" OBSERVABLE universe"...
    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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    That is not true..."that would imply that some waves of these universes get in the "our" OBSERVABLE universe"...
    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...

    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?)
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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...
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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....
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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?)
    If other universes exist, they would not be causally connected to our own, and therefore we would have no way to detect them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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...
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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....
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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?)
    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!
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    If other universes exist, they would not be causally connected to our own, and therefore we would have no way to detect them.
    And, for the benefit of dapifo, being causally disconnected is the definition of another universe.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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!
    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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    If other universes exist, they would not be causally connected to our own, and therefore we would have no way to detect them.
    And, for the benefit of dapifo, being causally disconnected is the definition of another universe.
    Please, give a reasoned and clear answer to Technologies to wider the current limmits of Our Universe
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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!
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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!
    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.
    STRAGE could you introduce your self and your background on physics?..are you autodidact...isn´t it?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    If other universes exist, they would not be causally connected to our own, and therefore we would have no way to detect them.
    And, for the benefit of dapifo, being causally disconnected is the definition of another universe.
    Please, give a reasoned and clear answer to Technologies to wider the current limmits of Our Universe
    See post #14.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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!
    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.
    Please, read again and slowly my post Technologies to wider the current limmits of Our Universe

    and then give a reasoned answer....but first introduce your self and your studies and curren job...student?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Our Universe accepted by mainstream is a 4D shape of 10 exp + 27 metters (arround 90 billions ly of diameter)
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    ....how we could detect signals from outside this limit scale...from others universes out :
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    and then give a reasoned answer
    I have read it and already given a reasoned answer. What is it about my reasons that you object to?

    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    but first introduce your self and your studies and curren job...student?
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Our Universe accepted by mainstream is a 4D shape of 10 exp + 27 metters (arround 90 billions ly of diameter)
    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.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    ....how we could detect signals from outside this limit scale...from others universes out :
    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.
    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 ...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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 ...
    That is not possible for fairly obvious reasons.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    but first introduce your self and your studies and curren job...student?
    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?
    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)...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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)...
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK you are right: Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Then which is the expectec dimension of Our Universe: The whole Universe generated with the big-bang?
    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:
    According to the theory of cosmic inflation and its founder, Alan Guth, if it is assumed that inflation began about seconds 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.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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 ...
    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.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    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).
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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?
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    And also ... why do you say " we don't think the universe has an edge, as such" (Who is we?...mainstream?)
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Do you agree with the theories that says that OUR Universe is a 4D space-time Universe (4D Möbius Toro or 4D Klein bottle )?

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    ....then it hasn´t 2D edges. (as the surface of an sphere 3D)..but yes 3D (within 4D space-time).
    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
    .
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    I am Industrial Engineer...
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    AlexG...which is your backgroud?...are you able to tell us it?...or not?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    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.
    What do you mean by the stretching of the allready existing waves?..that they will be take off...moved...brocked,...

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Do you agree with the theories that says that OUR Universe is a 4D space-time Universe (4D Möbius Toro or 4D Klein bottle )?

    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    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.

    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    ....then it hasn´t 2D edges. (as the surface of an sphere 3D)..but yes 3D (within 4D space-time).
    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
    .
    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 everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    AlexG...which is your backgroud?...are you able to tell us it?...or not?
    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?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    What do you mean by the stretching of the allready existing waves?..that they will be take off...moved...brocked,...
    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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    AlexG...which is your backgroud?...are you able to tell us it?...or not?
    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?
    Ok...that is agood background...

    I´m Industrial Engineer...for main energy and environment projects (Hydrpower, biodiessel, FV, windpower,..
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    What do you mean by the stretching of the allready existing waves?..that they will be take off...moved...brocked,...
    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 thanks strange...but then if the EM wave was 10^-26 meters....now couls be of 1 meter (!!)
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK thanks strange...but then if the EM wave was 10^-26 meters....now couls be of 1 meter (!!)
    More like 1055 meters (or something).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    OK thanks strange...but then if the EM wave was 10^-26 meters....now couls be of 1 meter (!!)
    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...

    ...Why they cannot exist?...only because we have not been able to detect them till now?...but theoretically ther are possible...but undetectable !!!
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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...
    I work in CAD/CAM.

    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    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.

    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...
    You like the Calabi-Yau manifold, don't you. 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    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...
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    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?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Well, ...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?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Well, ...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?
    No, for the same reason. The only reason I said "just after" is because "before" the Big-Bang is undefined.

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Well, ...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?
    No, for the same reason. The only reason I said "just after" is because "before" the Big-Bang is undefined.

    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...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    But 10^-80 meters is smaller than a plank length. How could light from another universe have a wavelength smaller than a planck length?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    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 !!!!
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    As I already said earlier:

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    I don't think it is possible to have electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of . Isn't that smaller than a Planck length?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    New Member superjay79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by superjay79 View Post
    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?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Frontline technologies?
    By erwinigel1000 in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 25th, 2012, 09:43 AM
  2. Replies: 37
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2012, 03:23 PM
  3. Renaissance Technologies ??
    By oracle in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 4th, 2006, 01:30 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •