December 4th, 2012, 05:40 PM
Now is considered that the Universe is unique...and then it is a Closed System.
But, if we consider that other Universes (bubbles) could be out the limits of Our Universe with their own Big-bang....may be it could be an Open System...were EM waves can get in and out...transferin energy...
Is it a feasible proposal?...What will change with the current theories?...
George S. Patton
Ralph Waldo Emerson
That is an interesting question. If it were open it would mean we can exchange entropy. And then our universe would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which (maxwell's demon) it doesn't. This is fun as it would mean the universe is intrinsically closed.Bear in mind though that, just because it is closed, doesn't mean it can't be infinitely large.
You might say that exchange energy.Originally Posted by Kerling
How do you know that ... it doesn't..exchange energy?
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
If it was an open system the heat death of the universe would not occur and it would never reach entropy
I would have though that if there was exchange of energy and information with those other bubbles then they would, by definition, all be part of one universe.
Otherwise, perhaps you need to define more exactly what you mean by the word "universe" (it seems to get used in so many different ways).
if it was open,then the second law of thermodynamics will be voilated using same thought experiment like maxwell's demon..then our universe can be a and another can be b...we can exchange entropy so that our univers can be made more stable thereby reducing the rate of expansion...this is in accordance with maxwell's demon...but then the definiton of universe will change with respect to what strange highlighted....
[QUOTE=dapifo;373404]That doesn't matter, the exchange of entropy is a far more general effect then energy. I could have them energetically isolated and still have the exchange of entropy. The exchange of energy is just a special case of the entropy one. If it isn't closed entropy is your first and foremost problem. Say that we would actually compute this;
Then our global(universal) value is obviously the total mass of the universe. (provided that it is closed) So this wouldn't be the total amount of particles, though this is a relevant term. Then the changing parameter would be the volume of the universe (it expands).
However it would be inversed when the universe is 'open' first of all we would need to define a volume. (after all if we don't do this then the universe is always encompassing all its matter) and then we'd see that the mass of that volume changes. It wouldn't do us any good as it doesn't change the situation. The problem with the Universe is, that it is everything. Everything is intrisically closed. A bit like infinity. Infinity plus 2 is still infinity. But the entropy argument holds strong.
The main problem is, that our universe has a size, namely its age times the speed of light. All in all, this is what we know, and if we were wrong we'd probably have seen something by now, or it will take centuries to even observe. Either way, not worth the current bother.
Ah, that is the "observable universe". We are pretty certain the universe is very much larger than that.
and continues to enlarge!
Ok ..you are right...We all consider the Universe...the Known Universe (what I name as Our Universe)...the Universe that began with the Big-bang of 13.700 M years ago....but could be other out of this...with other big-bangs...and all these Universes (that I forsee will be arround 10 exp +11 universes/bubbles) can shape another level of the Whole Universe.I would have though that if there was exchange of energy and information with those other bubbles then they would, by definition, all be part of one universe.
Otherwise, perhaps you need to define more exactly what you mean by the word "universe" (it seems to get used in so many different ways).
I agree with you that the Whole universe has to be Closed...but the problem is that could be infinite.
So the cuestion is "if we consider that other Universes (bubbles) could be out the limits of Our Universe with their own Big-bang....may be it could be an Open System...were EM waves can get in and out...transferin energy..."...here is clear the quetios is over"Our Universe"
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Please, read the difference between "Our Universe" and "Whole Universe"
http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...tml#post373656
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Please, read the difference between "Our Universe" and "Whole Universe"
What will happen if we sopose the Universe as an Open System?
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
you should also consider that you should have specified the universe you are assuming open...with that not specified,it becomes an open question.
[QUOTE=Kerling;373528]Well I´ll try to explain better my question:That doesn't matter, the exchange of entropy is a far more general effect then energy. I could have them energetically isolated and still have the exchange of entropy. The exchange of energy is just a special case of the entropy one. If it isn't closed entropy is your first and foremost problem. Say that we would actually compute this;
Then our global(universal) value is obviously the total mass of the universe. (provided that it is closed) So this wouldn't be the total amount of particles, though this is a relevant term. Then the changing parameter would be the volume of the universe (it expands).
However it would be inversed when the universe is 'open' first of all we would need to define a volume. (after all if we don't do this then the universe is always encompassing all its matter) and then we'd see that the mass of that volume changes. It wouldn't do us any good as it doesn't change the situation. The problem with the Universe is, that it is everything. Everything is intrisically closed. A bit like infinity. Infinity plus 2 is still infinity. But the entropy argument holds strong.
The main problem is, that our universe has a size, namely its age times the speed of light. All in all, this is what we know, and if we were wrong we'd probably have seen something by now, or it will take centuries to even observe. Either way, not worth the current bother.
Our Universe (bubble): The bubble we are...it has 10 exp +27 meters of diameter...and started 13.700 millions year ago by a Big-Bang....has arround 10 exp + 70 molecules...and 10 exp+11 galaxies...
Next level of Whole Universe: a set of Different other bubbles (possible 10 exp +11 bubbles/similar Our Universes)....these other bubbles has differen nuber of molecules, galaxies,....the Big - bangs started in different times....
Then it is posible that happen following scenarios:
- EM waves (or other type of waves) get in or cross Our Universe coming from other bubbles.
- EM waves (or gravitional waves) go out Our Universe ...
- A part of the expansion of Our Universe could be generated/produced by an external pull effect of out of Our Universe: vacuum attraction (gravitational, electrical, ...).. and it could explain the Dark Energy (!!!)
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Yes Strange I know that is different the "Observable Universe" (13.700 million years light radius) than the Our Universe (arroun 50.000 million years light radius)---But also different to the Whole Universe (infinite?)Ah, that is the "observable universe". We are pretty certain the universe is very much larger than that.
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
And that is the core of the problem. No radiation, energy or anything else can reach us from outside of the observable universe (by definition). And that is true for every point in "our universe". Every point in our universe is surrounded by a sphere of "observable universe". Every point within that sphere is within our universe.
There is no point in our universe where the "observable universe" sphere for that point touches or goes outside our universe (because that would mean there was an edge or boundary to our universe, which there isn't).
Therefore, nothing can reach anywhere in this universe from outside of the our universe. Because "outside of our universe" is not in anyone's observable universe.
Also, I am pretty sure that any two "bubble universes" created by different big bangs would be receding from each other faster than the speed of light.
Our Universe
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
STRANGE are you saying that Our Universe is unique and that it is impossible the multiverses?And that is the core of the problem. No radiation, energy or anything else can reach us from outside of the observable universe (by definition). And that is true for every point in "our universe". Every point in our universe is surrounded by a sphere of "observable universe". Every point within that sphere is within our universe.
There is no point in our universe where the "observable universe" sphere for that point touches or goes outside our universe (because that would mean there was an edge or boundary to our universe, which there isn't).
Therefore, nothing can reach anywhere in this universe from outside of the our universe. Because "outside of our universe" is not in anyone's observable universe.
Also, I am pretty sure that any two "bubble universes" created by different big bangs would be receding from each other faster than the speed of light.
Possibly I can agree with you that no wave could "go outside our universe" ... but not that "No radiation, energy or anything else can reach us from outside of the observable universe "
Ok we see from inside Our Universe that there are not edges...as we see there are not edges to the 2D surface of the earth....but in 3D yes we see the edges of the earth...so our universe is 4D.... then to see the edges of our universe we need to see it in 4 or 5 D !!
And...if there are other universes (bobbles) out the our universe ...they had to appear (big-bang) before ours big-bang...so they already were emiting gravitional or EM waves before ours big-bang... then yes these waves can arrive to our universe !!... because these waves already exist when the Big-Bang of our universe start.....I consider that the big-bang of our universe start within existing space and fields...were allready exist other universes...
Last edited by dapifo; December 5th, 2012 at 07:34 PM.
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
No. What makes you think that? (I have no idea whether a multiverse is impossible or not. I don't know or care much about the subject.)
That is the definition of "observable universe". If energy could reach us from outside the observable universe then we could observe that, and therefore it would be part of the observable universe.Possibly I can agree with you that no wave could "go outside our universe" ... but not that "No radiation, energy or anything else can reach us from outside of the observable universe "
As far as we know there is no 5D "outside" of the universe to see its edges from; it doesn't have edges.Ok we see from inside Our Universe that there are not edges...as we see there are not edges to the 2D surface of the earth....but in 3D yes we see the edges of the earth...so our universe is 4D.... then to see the edges of our universe we need to see it in 4 or 5 D
Not if they are outside our observable universe and outside the observable universe of every point in "our universe".And...if there are other universes (bobbles) out the our universe ...they had to appear (big-bang) before ours big-bang...so they already were emiting gravitional or EM waves before ours big-bang... then yes these waves can arrive to our universe
(By the way, I invented the argument that another universe must be outside the observable universe for every point in our universe. So it may be wrong. But it makes sense to me.)
OK...I had to say: "No radiation, energy or anything else can reach us from outside of OUR universe " ....but please, state the difference betwee our Universe and Observable Universe, the second is a part of the first....but ok if we observe waves from outside OUR universe...they could be also The Observable Universe (???)
As far as we know there is no 5D "outside" of the universe to see its edges from; it doesn't have edges.[/QUOTE]Ok we see from inside Our Universe that there are not edges...as we see there are not edges to the 2D surface of the earth....but in 3D yes we see the edges of the earth...so our universe is 4D.... then to see the edges of our universe we need to see it in 4 or 5 D
So..for you there are not Universes OUT of Our Universe....
Not if they are outside our observable universe and outside the observable universe of every point in "our universe".[/QUOTE]And...if there are other universes (bobbles) out the our universe ...they had to appear (big-bang) before ours big-bang...so they already were emiting gravitional or EM waves before ours big-bang... then yes these waves can arrive to our universe
You put this bold observable...I didn´t...I said Our Universe...But you are saying that is possible that we could observe waves (signals) from out side of Our Universe....but , if we can observe them, then they will belong to the Observable Universe (?)
(By the way, I invented the argument that another universe must be outside the observable universe for every point in our universe. So it may be wrong. But it makes sense to me.
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Actually, it is not the observable universe I meant. Assume that the universe expands with the speed of light. Then the age times the speed of light gives the size of this universe. Now the observable universe its much smaller then that, therefore I did not impart it in the closed system scheme. The observable universe is observable, so its border is light years away, but then the light has to travel back to us for it to he observable. Hence the observable universe (albeit all we can know) is contained within the whole universe. The entropy reasoning is for the while universe. But yes it might bed possible that whatever happens in the non observable universe might change that reasoning. I have however no implications to assume so. And I cannot observe it, so I don't bother.
Aha! That is where you are going wrong. Expansion isn't a speed, it is more a scaling: all distances get multiplied by some factor per unit time.
So, if the distance between us and a point X light years away increases by 0.1% in a year (the number is much too large but makes a simple example) then we will see it moving away with a velocity of 0.1 light years per year (i.e. a tenth the speed of light)
Similarly, the distance between us and a point 10X light years away will also increase by 0.1% in a year so we will see it moving away with a velocity of 1 light years per year (i.e. the speed of light).
And a point 20X light years away will be receding at twice the speed of light.
There are and, as I understand it, always have been points that are moving away at more then the speed of light. The size of the whole universe cannot be determined just from ago and light speed. It depends how big it was to start with.
(Note: this is outside my area of expertise so I may not have the details completely correct, but I think it is basically right...)
OK, the Observable Universe is the sphere around us that we can "see" (in the broadest sense). We can only detect light, energy, etc from the Observable Universe. That is what makes it observable.
We assume that the rest of our universe continues largely unchanged outside the Observable Universe. It is almost certainly many orders of magnitude larger than the Observable Universe. It may be infinite. It is also "unbounded"; however far you go you will never get to a boundary or edge.
Every point (i.e. position or location) in the universe is surrounded by its own Observable Universe sphere (with the rest of the universe outside it). Because there is no boundary to the universe, every one of these Observable Universes must be entirely within our universe. Because if it was not entirely within our universe that would mean it had gone through the edge, which doesn't exist.
OK, so far?
From this I conclude that because at every position in our universe you can only detect stuff in the surrounding Observable Universe (which is entirely within our universe) that therefore you can only ever detect stuff that is inside our universe.
I don't really see the connection and I don't know enough about the subject to say much about it. Our universe is fully defined by 4 dimensions, there is no "higher" fifth dimension.So..for you there are not Universes OUT of Our Universe....As far as we know there is no 5D "outside" of the universe to see its edges from; it doesn't have edges.
I don't know if other universes are hypothesised to exist in the same 4 dimensional manifold, another 4 dimensional manifold or what. If the latter, then I assume there can be no causal connection (or communication) between them.
You seem to have an image of universes as little bubbles floating in space. Despite knowing almost nothing about such theories, I am willing to bet that that is completely wrong. (But, as I say, I neither know nor care.)
Just to be clear: by "point" I simply meant position. We assume the universe is homogeneous on large scales. So anything we say about our observable universe applies to every other position / location / observer in the universe.I dont understand what do you mean by "for every point in our universe"
how far thoes the homogenity of our observable universe speak for the rest of the universe?
We can't know because we can never observe the rest of the universe.
There is something called the Cosmological Principle, which is the assumption that there is nothing special about our place in the universe. So we assume the rest of the universe is basically the same as the part we can see.
Cosmological principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
okay thanks for the link.
okay thanks for the link.was'nt the inflationary big bang version as a cause of the homogenity?
was'nt the inflationary big bang version as a cause of the homogenity?
I am confused (not for the first time!).
Suppose a celestial object at this instant in time 1 lightyear away.So at this instant a photon reaching me from this object is 1 year "old". Right?
Now suppose this object is moving away relative to me at 1 lightyear/year. So at this time next year a photon reaching me will be 2 years "old". Right?
But surely this "same photon" will already have reached me some time in the past - when, I cannot say, as I don't know how to do the calculation - it will probably involve a negative exponent of the number e.
Or am I being dim?
I don´t understand what do you mean with this sentence (?)
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
I am pretty sure you are not being dim, it is confusing. And I am definitely not the right person to ask. It is complicated by the fact that there is not global "now" so it gets tricky to talk about when a given photon was released, for example.
Suppose a celestial object at this instant in time 1 lightyear away.So at this instant a photon reaching me from this object is 1 year "old". Right?
If you receive a photon that is one year "old" then the source was one 1 light year away when that photon was released. Now, that object will be much further away (a rather unrealistic 2 light years, in your example).
If an object is 1 light year away and it releases a photon, you won't see that photon for a year.
Now suppose this object is moving away relative to me at 1 lightyear/year. So at this time next year a photon reaching me will be 2 years "old". Right?
This time next year, you will receive a photon that was released when the object was 2 light years away.
Not sure if that helps. It probably needs someone like Speedfreek to explain it properly...
Actually, I wasn't being dim - I was being stupid.
First notice I was assuming a linear (i.e. unaccelerated ) rate of separation between our photon-emitting object and me, the observer.
Suppose, as we may, that I am now 36 years old. In my previous scenario, a photon from a 1 lightyear distant object that I see now would have been emitted when I was 35years old. So the "age" difference between me and the photon is just 35 years
But next year, say, I would be 37 years old, and our photon-emitting object, assuming linear motion relative to me at 1 lightyear/year, would emit any photon that I now perceive, will be 2 years "old".
Guess the age difference in this case!!
If, as I should have said, that the separation rate is not linear, but rather 1 lightyear/year/year, then things get a bit complicated, at least for my pea-brain
this points are fixed,they are intrinsic properties of space...they expand with the universe,so also we do...but the farther they are the greater they move away from us,this then logically is caused by we not calculating our own expansion relative to them...its as if we are stationary,but we are also expanding at same rate relative to them....ie,we are poin x,and adromeda galaxy iss point y,if we see adromeda moving away from us at 1lightyear and increasing,they also we see us expanding at 1lightyear and increasing.....just like the ballon experiment.
Well, all that has me totally confused! This question needs diagrams.
Firstly, if you were talking about ordinary movement through space (which can be described using Special Relativity), then none of the photons will ever reach you as they would be redshifted to infinity. The object is constantly receding at c, after all.
But if the object is apparently receding at c due to the expansion of the universe, then it will take a lot longer than 1 year for a photon originally emitted 1 light-year away to reach you. When that photon reaches you, it will form part of your past light-cone, and you will see the object to be 1 light-year away even though it is "now" more distant, and even though the light took much longer than 1 year to reach you.
As to the second photon, emitted when the object is two light years away, that photon forms part of your future light-cone.
But I'm not sure I am trying to answer the same question you are asking, and I certainly cannot do the maths.
Good point, but that doesn't change the argument. After all, the idea was to find a reason why it would be open. If it were open, then that inherently would mean that it is expanding into something else. And that something else might not be expanding at the same speed. There is 2 options, one it is slower, meaning we will catch up and revert the same question again, is the universe in which our universe is expanding expanding in another universe? etc. etc. Or it is faster expanding in which case our 'open' system would be getting smaller and smaller in the other universe. This too would have very measurable effects for the exchange of information (entropy, whatever) with the surrounding universe. It could be expanding at the same speed, in which case the difference would be unobservable. Or in the cognitively most easy thoughts, it expands (or contracts) at a speed which is neglectable to our expansion.Aha! That is where you are going wrong. Expansion isn't a speed, it is more a scaling: all distances get multiplied by some factor per unit time.
So, if the distance between us and a point X light years away increases by 0.1% in a year (the number is much too large but makes a simple example) then we will see it moving away with a velocity of 0.1 light years per year (i.e. a tenth the speed of light)
Similarly, the distance between us and a point 10X light years away will also increase by 0.1% in a year so we will see it moving away with a velocity of 1 light years per year (i.e. the speed of light).
And a point 20X light years away will be receding at twice the speed of light.
There are and, as I understand it, always have been points that are moving away at more then the speed of light. The size of the whole universe cannot be determined just from ago and light speed. It depends how big it was to start with.
(Note: this is outside my area of expertise so I may not have the details completely correct, but I think it is basically right...)
Therefore in the sense of the question of open or closed system our universe most definitely has an expansion speed, giving it a size in this hypothetical reservoir to which our universe is an open system.
And it is this size that was the entire problem with the open-system hypothesis in the first place.
i think the entire problem lies on the fact that there is no center of expansion...no were to trace the future and present to....it like the origin makes everything siller.
If you want to build a cosmological model on that basis, you will have to start by replacing GR.
which i will state clear that it won't work
Haha, god no, I wouldn't dream of it, besides the GR laws are just laws, not solutions. I wouldn't need to replace it, just figure out another solution. However I don't intend to, as far as I am conceirned the universe is a single bubble. And it is a closed system. Most importantly I really don't want to spend too much time thinking about it, as the theories are either unprovable or not my field at all.If you want to build a cosmological model on that basis, you will have to start by replacing GR.
But the idea isn't so strange. If it is open, it must exchange something with something. Even if we are to assume there are other universe 'bubbles' out there. They would be bubbles, and what is in between? not just nothing but a non existence. This makes the whole concept of bubbles a bit weird. Cause even a void requires space. And outside the bubbles there is no space. Hence no void. This would mean that from the 'overseer' point of view (the one that can identify different bubbles) He either lives in a 5D+ world or, he just sees bubbles pressing against eachother. This would deform our spacetime. So either we would have known, or it is in a higher dimensional we can't observe.
So if it is open, there is another universe and the argument applies.
But personally, I think the whole idea of multiple bubbles is completely redundant as it is unprovable.
I live in GR's universe, and it is closed and infinite. I'm quite content with that.
(and to all the arguments why it can be closed and infinite at the same time, well, how can an infinite universe NOT be closed? )
It might be finite, though. (But still without a boundary or an "outside")
I know, but the problem is, that I always remember a lecture from one of my professors about the derivation of the higgs particle. It assumes the universe to be infinite :P (or about 2 meters large) I can't back it up with proof, but the thought haunts me.It might be finite, though. (But still without a boundary or an "outside")
Yes ...you are dim...the second photon is another photon...what is moving is the object..tha send continuosly several photons...
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Well that Our Universe is an Open system...means that:
- It is expanding within a higher level of 5D space-time...were other 4D universes could exist...
- And that energy and entropy from this higher level of 5D space-time could get in our universe (and "vice versa")...in other words...wave (EM or gravitional) could go out or in...
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
OK..I like you say that it is not so strange that within a 5D space-time could be several 4D universes (bubbles) geting away or colliding between them...although it could be unprovable...at least you are able to think and to talk about...
But why do you think that it has less possibilities than there will be nothing out there?
Other question you do is ...what will be between different 4D universes?...there could be 4D space...and possiby filled of radiations....EM...Gravitional...and..others?
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
You just couldn't resist, could you? I, at least, recognize my intellectual limitations. How about you?
Question: Why is the assumption made here that an "open and expanding" universe must be expanding into to "higher dimensional" space? This is not obvious to me
And there you are definitely not being dim. It is a totally unjustified assumption that directly contradicts our best theories. (Not that dapifo will let a little thing like that stop him.)
There is no evidence for 5 dimensional space-time so you are just making things up again. Why not study some real science instead.
I don´t understand what do you mean....why do you say that?... What I said wrong?You just couldn't resist, could you? I, at least, recognize my intellectual limitations. How about you?
If the shape of Our Universe is a 4D shape (4D Möbius Toro or 4D Klein bottle ),,,we will need a 5D (extra space 4D) to realize and encompass different 4D universes...
You are mathematic...and you will understand better than me this assumtion or deduction.
Our 4D Universe is expanding into a higher (at least 5D) dimensional space-time....
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
No it isn't. Please go and learn some physics.
Where did you learn physics STRANGE?No it isn't. Please go and learn some physics.
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Well, that is just the thing. It can't. The bubble theory (as I recall it from lectures from Penrose at least) assert that these bubbles are formed from other big bangs. And these bubbles can be formed at random. If they are formed at random, then so will the constants of physics. Creating bubbles which expand and contract differently. Currently our universe is very stable as it seems that the constants are so very fine tuned chosen that complex molecules can form and the universe expands fast enough for it not to have been crushed billions of years ago. (I believe the odds to create our Universe at random are somewhere in the 10^(-120) scale. )
Even so, lets assert that these bubbles exist, and that even though constants might be different the laws don't change.
Then we have 3 possibilities, 1. There is an overlap of bubbles, 2. two bubbles border 3. bubbles do not overlap or touch at all.
1: If there is an overlap then there is a flow of space-time due to the difference in expansion. Since a 'flow' isn't really possible there is a weird superposition of two bubbles having a very weird reaction either way, matter can exchange itself and hence the entropy of the whole world is broken and so is the second law of thermodynamics (for one of the universes I might add. But then again to the 'bubble' argument. Bubbles do not overlap unless they reside in a higher order dimensional space. This means that the 'overlap' is not necessarily at the (undefined) ' edge' of space, but could be anywhere! In any place at any time. Surely we would have noticed, and otherwise maybe we will. It is not unprovable and unfalsifiable either. So who knows, maybe such an overlap by change would only cause other bubbles to have their 2nd law of thermodynamics violated.
1+2: The overlap in a bubble case is a single 5 Dimensional point, which would constitute in a 4D line in our universe. (1D extra, depending on the bubble-space dimensionality) This could be a dot in time of a line in space. Either way not provable and not falsifiable.
2: there could also be a layer of edging, where one bubble 'presses' against the other. Then we can suffice with a 4D bubble space. Yet, this would cause spacetime to deform, and by observation we know this not to be true. So either we are again 'the single lucky bubble' or we can completely scratch the the idea of 4 Dimensional bubble space. Since I don't believe our universe/bubble should be special. I scratch it.
3: our bubbles do not overlap. In essence there is no difference in this hypothesis from a closed system. The effects and measurements would be the same and no.
The is no filling of radiation or gravity. Even gravity waves need space-time to propagate through. Just like soundwaves do not propagate through a vacuum. Take away all media of propagation. (which in the case of non-bubble-ness, ergo, non-existence), is nothing at all! Between bubbles there is no exchange of force particles or whatever representation. It is essentially closed as the edge is the perfect mirror. However since the universe is infinite, there is no mirror to find. Hence the 5D view is the only one that can suffice as in 4D the bubbles are infinitely large. That is the entire idea.
in short 2=No way, 3=Closed anyway, 1=maybe, who knows.
So 1 should be observable. However until we do, I am not going to bother with it, as I have no reasons to believe that it should, and we don't have an unsolved problem either. Till that time, it is just scientifically correct fiction.
Thnks a lot for your long and well reasoned answer....that is the way I would like to discuss!!!!
OK...but what is the possibility of existin other planet as our (Earth)...and to origen the ADN...and that ADN evolve till humans...?
OK...like galaxies...black holes....refresh bubbles...
Well I don´t understand why you say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is violated?... it is the same than two bubbles (one of air at 20ºC and other of He at 30 ºC have a collision within a liquid (water)...an other bubble bigger but of other conditions will appear (air+H2...and T between 20-30ºC).
Or if collision two Black Hole ...
OK
Why do you say "by observation we know this not to be true"...yes there are some observations of the Microwave Background Radiation of the Universe (made by NASA'sWMAP): http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J12/transparencies/11_Sunday_am/mcewen.pdf
But...if not...possible we could have in the future (!?)
What do you mean by "no difference in this hypothesis from a closed system" and "The effects and measurements would be the same and no" ?
That is not true...and between universes could exist lost matter (3D or 4D)..and lost waves (EM, gravitional or other unknown)....
Hawkings says taht: that "the the uncertainty principle ensures that even in empty space is an unnerving and swarming frenzy of virtual particles that arise and that then they annihilate each other."...
OK..but the predictable would be that between 4D bubbles would be 5D (4space-1time)... with possible some lost particles (3D 0r 4D) and waves.....EM or Gravitional (or other unknown type)
No, I show how the 3 are possibles...
Dream is something that make human different...
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
if you say 5d can exist,what then would be this extra dimension?
u mean to say that the universe's entropy has some finite value? i.e. it is not infinite?........lmao well it violates the 2nd rule of thermodynamics
One extra space dimension
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Where is the evidence for this extra spatial dimension? What effect would it have on the equations of General Relativity?
it appears that this thread somehow coincidice with the other; universe like a 3d rainbow.
OK...Then we change the Law !!!
The Laws are a result of the observations...and not the contrary....
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
GR model is only valid forour universe and for large dimensions...they are not proved and acepted for very small dimensions (QM) and for out of our universe.,,I´m sorry.Where is the evidence for this extra spatial dimension? What effect would it have on the equations of General Relativity?
Possible string theory (M-Theory) could explain it better...will see...
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
No they are diferent:
3D Rainbow is a new concept of Universe...
Te current thread is a posssible consecuence of it
And Technologies to wider the current limmits of Our Universe are possible system yo prove them..
But some time there are some conflicts...
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
I might be jumping the generic response a bit late, but... If we assume the "universe" comprises all that physically exists, wouldn't that by definition make it an isolated system? Therefore, it cannot possibly be an open system?
yes epidecus,..........dapifo to what will you change it to?...laws are not just changed because of ideas.
Please, read this post...http://www.thescienceforum.com/physi...tml#post373663
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Laws no...what can be changed are the models and paterns that try to explain the laws
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
your best try will be on what?
Although I do not know what you mean with the abbreviation ADN, i can guess. The possibilities of another earth (geology wise) in our universe is fairly larger. Water seems to be one of the most common molecules in space. Also finding simple cellular life is also fairly large. But multi-cellular life is rare. And with that intelligent life too. Our planet has been stable for about a 3rd of the age of the entire universe. That is pretty rare. So, on average there is one intelligent lifeform in each galaxy. Meaning that (Fermi argument) we are probably the only one in this galaxy, but it is rather likely that there is intelligent life in another galaxy.
Life to evolve in a bubble with physical constants other then our own. Are ridiculously unlikely as there isn't even matter stability.
It goes a little further then that. A formulation of the second law is that the entropy of the universe must always increase. Now if our universe borders another universe then our universe as a system could exchange entropy is such a way, that this would no longer be the case (due to a massive decrease in entropy in the other bubble). And so that would mean that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would be violated. Which we know, it doesn't (at least, so far, not accounting locality issue's)
Because then the redshift of galaxies wouldn't be uniform in all direction. The universal expantion would no longer be isotropic. To a very noticeable degree even. They could have made that observation with half a century old equipment.
Well it is true, as we don't lose matter of EM-waves as there is nothing to lose it to. A loss, a propagation, a movement all require space(time) to exist in. Outside the bubbles, there is no such thing as a space(time) it cannot go there. It is like saying that soundwaves could exist inside a vacuum. They just don't as they have no medium to propagate through. And in this case the medium is spacetime, which is a pretty hard thing to do without. (things only exist in spacetime)
And yes, hawking said "the the uncertainty principle ensures that even in empty space is an unnerving and swarming frenzy of virtual particles that arise and that then they annihilate each other."
But even empty space, is space. And outside the bubbles there is no space, not even empty space.
No, it lies intrinsically outside our realm of observation. It is based upon the holographical principle. It is like a shadow. A shadow is a projection of a 3 dimensional object onto a 2 dimensional object. Even if we'd position it in every possible way, the projection would always, by definition have less information then the higher dimensional one. So whatever interaction there might be with this higher dimensional world, it can only be in the dimensions we know it, as we just don't have anything else to do it by. My shadow cannot stab me, no matter how solid the shadow might become, as he is 2D and I am 3D.
So even if there is freak N-order dimensional space bubbles. outside the bubble is nothing, and bubbles only exist in an (N+1) and higher order 'Bubble space'
There is nothing, outside the bubble, not empty, nothing, non-existence. There would still be nothing outside our bubble even if the dimensions of our bubble are infinite, as it lies in another dimensional space.
Then you would have to find a flaw in my reasoning and currently from your answers I don't see how you can.
Yes, dreaming is great
merumario you are absolute confuse between what is a law and a model....read my sign ....
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
...ADN (Spanish) = DNA (ENglish)
But you see that it is so extrange that our bubble exist than other things...DNA, multicelular Live,....
What is based you to make this statement?...
You are wrong...please, review the 2nd law of thermodynamics ...the existences of other universes (bubles) out there don´t contradict it...at all ... but rather the contrary...it could solve a lot of problems...like Dark Energy,...It goes a little further then that. A formulation of the second law is that the entropy of the universe must always increase. Now if our universe borders another universe then our universe as a system could exchange entropy is such a way, that this would no longer be the case (due to a massive decrease in entropy in the other bubble). And so that would mean that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would be violated. Which we know, it doesn't (at least, so far, not accounting locality issue's)
Because then the redshift of galaxies wouldn't be uniform in all direction. The universal expantion would no longer be isotropic. To a very noticeable degree even. They could have made that observation with half a century old equipment.
Did you see this adresss: http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J12/transparencies/11_Sunday_am/mcewen.pdf.
Which is your oppinion of it?
Well it is true, as we don't lose matter of EM-waves as there is nothing to lose it to. A loss, a propagation, a movement all require space(time) to exist in. Outside the bubbles, there is no such thing as a space(time) it cannot go there. It is like saying that soundwaves could exist inside a vacuum. They just don't as they have no medium to propagate through. And in this case the medium is spacetime, which is a pretty hard thing to do without. (things only exist in spacetime)
And yes, hawking said "the the uncertainty principle ensures that even in empty space is an unnerving and swarming frenzy of virtual particles that arise and that then they annihilate each other."
But even empty space, is space. And outside the bubbles there is no space, not even empty space.
What is based you to make this statement?...bold phrase....how do you know it?...have you been there...or see it...or calculate it...or you are only suposing it?
I cannot understand your insistence in something that you cannot prove...hwo tell you this?...how do you know?...My oppinion is that this is one possible possibility ...5D (4D space+1 time) is is possible ....and I agree with you: "bubbles only exist in an (N+1) and higher order 'Bubble space' "No, it lies intrinsically outside our realm of observation. It is based upon the holographical principle. It is like a shadow. A shadow is a projection of a 3 dimensional object onto a 2 dimensional object. Even if we'd position it in every possible way, the projection would always, by definition have less information then the higher dimensional one. So whatever interaction there might be with this higher dimensional world, it can only be in the dimensions we know it, as we just don't have anything else to do it by. My shadow cannot stab me, no matter how solid the shadow might become, as he is 2D and I am 3D.
So even if there is freak N-order dimensional space bubbles. outside the bubble is nothing, and bubbles only exist in an (N+1) and higher order 'Bubble space'
There is nothing, outside the bubble, not empty, nothing, non-existence. There would still be nothing outside our bubble even if the dimensions of our bubble are infinite, as it lies in another dimensional space.
I allready show that in your reasonign there are a lot of hypotesis that are not proved...all I put in bolt !!!!Then you would have to find a flaw in my reasoning and currently from your answers I don't see how you can.
You use the same......you state a lot of assertions that are not proved....possible we could focuss our discussion onYes, dreaming is great
"What there is between 4D bubbles...out of Our bubble"
You say nothing....and I say that 4D space with , possible, lost 4D matter and waves....
Come here:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/mathematics/32156-our-universe-4d-then-multiverse-higher-level-would-5d.html
Last edited by dapifo; December 11th, 2012 at 10:16 AM.
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
i get you but am not sure if you are getting everybody else.
I see...people likes to talk about things they can read...but they are not able to discuss further...grey people !!!
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
dapifo,
If we're talking multiverse theory here, then there's really no tangible discussion to be gained here.
The multiverse is a purely hypothetical leap-of-faith. As interesting as its notions may be, it has no consistent organization as a solid scientific hypothesis... which is why I see no reason in trying to apply real, tangible information to such a soft subject.
Ok epidecus...I respect your opinion...but about what do you like to discuss?...about mainstream topics?...then is possible better read them...why to discuss about something that there are not dubts of mistery...if it is proved and asumet..then there is any thing to discuss... only explain...(!!???)
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
I'm personally fine if you want to discuss your scientific curiosities. I'm just saying... don't expect to get any actual insight from this. The whole multi-verse subject is not strictly organized in any sense, even when looking at specific classifications provided by cosmologists. I don't see any sense in applying concepts of physics or thermodynamics to your own personal version of "multiple universes". It... just doesn't do anything.
Empirically testing the cosmic closed system fantasy is easy. Please build a perpmrpetual motion machine. Closed system theories are all variations of perpetual motion on a cosmic scale complete ex nihilo bunk and pure solipsism.
dapifo its as simple as stated.....this thread is ended.
I would like to think that solutions come out of the discussion of hypothetical subjects. It may be proven one day that the death of a universe is similar to two soap bubbles coming together. one assimilated by the other; the first expanding rapidly. I wonder if in that event the dark energy is what is transferred. If it were it could explain a lot.
if you want to disccuse,open a new thread abstract.
Will happend thae same than if two black holes will collide...they join the matter and the energy...
Supose that the two universes has different atoms...then all laws will cange...possible the light speed could be different...when they join...there will be the sum of the atoms of both universes...and laws could change again...and light speed also.
There could be a equation that coud relate light speed (c) and num. atoms (N)?...c = k N
And we can do the same with all the physics constants....0º K (Kelvin)...kp (cont. Planck)...G (Univ. Gravity),...
Thinks on it ...could be interesting for farsightedness...
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
I'm not following your train of thought... What do "k" and "N" denote? And how did you approach this?
These seem to already be well-defined based off physical observations. And they can be mathematically related some way or another, though not necessarily in any useful or enlightening way.we can do the same with all the physics constants....0º K (Kelvin)...kp (cont. Planck)...G (Univ. Gravity),...
Last edited by epidecus; December 12th, 2012 at 06:50 PM. Reason: Misread line. Edited.
see the laws were made by great minds.........n u say that we need to change the laws to accomodate ur views???.....well today u r proposing a theory....tommorow another guy might be doing that ........so u mean we change rules everytime someone randomly thinks of universe as a 3-D rainbow or arallel universes?????.......these laws were made because they are proved n not because they cannot be proved............think the other way buddy.....@Dapifo
You seem to have this ALL backwards.
Loosely: Conformal cyclic cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I haven't checked it out directly as my knowledge comes from lectures of Penrose himself and not the writing, but the wikipedia article cites some of his articles as source. Nowadays religion rapes the argumentation for the anthropic principle. Basically for this argument we only need the constants argument of Penrose. The cheer creation of the physical constant by a random act of nature is very small. Yet, to have the same expanding speed or even slightly less then ours (which is relevant for the open universe question) the changes can only be minute. (why, I refer to the rate of expansion with respect to collapse and big 'whif')
You do realise that in thermodynamics we can only calculate with absolute temperatures? and that even your simple example is well, wrong?
Well, no I am not wrong. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe (meaning our universe) must always increase and can never decrease. If we are to communicate with another universe which could be an entropy sink-hole. Then the combined system of the two universes could have an entropy increase due to particle (photon, boson whatever) exchange. But our own universe could have an entropy decrease This violates the law.
Now before you say, ' then we redefine our second law to be for the combined system' well, then your universe would be the 2 universes together, and it would again be a closed system for the law not to be violated. So any open universe would automatically be able to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, no matter how you universes you define to be part of your universe.
And I have reviewed it, I have passed all classes in thermodynamics, statistical physics and even advanced statistical physics by the world lead top scientists. I know this might not be considered a good argument. Put I am quite sure of what I am doing, and unless you have some well cited article that says otherwise, I am going to assume that my teachers knew what they were doing.
Well first off the article is rather new, and cosmology isn't my field of expertise. However the method's seem concise and the discussion in the actual article are thorough. There is however an elementary flaw in the entire reasoning. And that is the CMB radiation. Fact of the matter is, that the variations are minute and tiny. And that CMB so far doesn't at all represent the changing in CMB that one would expect simply by the matter that it has left behind. Therefore any conclusions we base upon the measurements are hard to conclude what they originate from. Sure mathematically seen the rings occur, and the theory might be concise, but the computations are still found by looking for ring-structures. One would expect the collisions of universes to be much more thorough then the subtle radiation differences at the CMB. Therefore from a theoretical point of view, the conclusions are fishy and incomplete. The article is after all an article about the experimental data analysis and not about the full understanding of it. However it is a very new article and who knows what will the future will bring. We'll wait and see.
What is important is that their construct of bubbles do not contradict my previous reasoning as they presupose a identical dimensionality between bubbles. As I said before the article is theoretically fishy.
That is based on the dimensionality argument. If it lies in the same dimensionality our universe's space-time would stretch identically over infinity in all distances. This is what the article discusse above uses. However this is a very hard assumption. It is like saying that because one duck is blue, all ducks are blue even though you cannot see the other ducks yet. A safer assumption is to reason with the possibility of different dimensionality of space-time. (and different expansions) In that case the bubble theory still holds but in higher dimensions (as it actually was initially). This is a safe assumption as it is very general. However this means that our spacetime is bubbles in something else. Something which inherently must lack said space-time. Something that lack's spacetime doesn't have 'space' nor time, to support anything physical like mass, energy or whatever. Meaning nothing is in existence there.
I know that, because that is how the laws of general relativity work. They work on a space-time metric and all physics resides on a space-time metric. No metric, is no physics.
If you are heaving trouble in understanding this try to imagine that something isn't just empty but non-existent. This will be very difficult to imagine if you believe in things that are unprovable, since then you can always imagine something to be there out of sheer belief. That is why I use the words non-existence and not nothing as nothing implies a lack of things. And non-existence implies there simply being not there.
Well it isn't really part of an opinion really. If something doesn't exist, it cannot be observed. But I understand your difficulty, let me rephrase it:
In reality the act of observation changes the way the universe works (philosophical debates can be conducted here but simple experimental work like the quantum-eraser experiment show that the contradicting arguments are disproved again and again, so instead of making this a discussion about this sentence please give up your beliefs, and believe the experiments otherwise I won't do science with you)
This means that any observation is intrinsically linked to the creation of a reality. In other words, if we cannot intrinsically observe something, for instance because it doesn't exist, it can never be part of our reality. Our observable reality. And Physics, the entire science is based upon this observable reality. Anything which is intrinsically un-observable is discarded by science, as it is unprovable and just part of religion really.
So in short as I cannot observe something that does not exist, it doesn't become part of reality, or worse un-observable phenomena are not part of physics.
Back to the argumentation above, even if there is a 5D, we would still (sheerly by the way we have defined dimensions and mathematics) still only be able of knowing its holographic projection upon our 4D world. This means that there lies a set of unobservable non projectable information in the 5D that therefore cannot intrinsically be part of our physical universe.
Since this projection can be see inside our 4D world, it means that outside our 4D world, there is nothing of existence.
then where are they? maybe your post got lost, but I don't see any of your reasonings after my introduction of the 3 possibilities.
And so far you have not made a flaw in my reasoning just statements of that you believe A or B, or that you think there should be. If you want to disprove my reasoning you will have to quote a line or segment of my reasoning and tell me why my steps or assumptions are wrong or too or not too general for the proof to be valid or acceptable to you.
Ow yes, I use a lot of assertions, but unless I say that my assertion are general or non general assumption all my assertions are based upon experimental results. I sometimes forget to name experimental results as being assertions because, well, science is based upon the act of experimentation so I kind of see them as truths.
Well then the argument still holds, if the space is the same, there is a 4D universe even beyond the CMB-radiation-front, which has the same laws the same everything as our observable universe, and it stretches out to infinity. Then as I reasoned above several times the universe can only be closed. That is what the entire thread was for.
Even if the rate of expansion is different, and the dimensionality is the same I have already reasoned what would happen. Maybe my stories are too complex to read, but your proposition has already been treated as a subgroup of my general reasoning and given terms of observational evidence for it to be true.
Also, without having checked the mathematical forum, I must emphasize that a multi-verse is not the same as bubble universes, in fact quite the contrary.
Life to evolve in a bubble with physical constants other then our own. Are ridiculously unlikely as there isn't even matter stability.
It is so ridiculously unlikely as that could be life in other tar systems...
You do realise that in thermodynamics we can only calculate with absolute temperatures? and that even your simple example is well, wrong?
OK..please, then read 193-303 ºK
Then the combined system of the two universes could have an entropy increase due to particle (photon, boson whatever) exchange. But our own universe could have an entropy decrease This violates the law.
OK..you are not wrong...you are only confused !!!
The second law of thermodynamics is only true within Our Universe...if it is closed..and if it expanding !!!...in other case this law has no sense...and could be different !!!...It is so easy.
(I continue in other post)
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Outside the bubbles, there is no such thing as a space(time)
If there are several bubbles ... which in principle could be 3Dspace-1Dtime (as Nuestrp Universe) ... or 2Dspace-4Dspace-nDspace (+1 DTIME) ... and they there exixt in a higher level .... With Their own big-bangs .... differnt numberof atoms ... expanding, Stabilised or larger or smaller decreasing .... .... there will be different laws ... constants ... possible the speed of light Could be other and Also ... G (Gravity constant) Could be different ...
What will be in the middle of These universes? ... 3D space (2D or 4D ... ... nD)?
(to be continued...)
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
if we cannot intrinsically observe something, for instance because it doesn't exist, it can never be part of our reality. Our observable reality. And Physics, the entire science is based upon this observable reality. Anything which is intrinsically un-observable is discarded by science, as it is unprovable and just part of religion really.
So in short as I cannot observe something that does not exist, it doesn't become part of reality, or worse un-observable phenomena are not part of physics.
Have you (or any bodyelse) see the neutrinos, gluons, bosons,...strings...?
(to be continued....)
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Back to the argumentation above, even if there is a 5D, we would still (sheerly by the way we have defined dimensions and mathematics) still only be able of knowing its holographic projection upon our 4D world. This means that there lies a set of unobservable non projectable information in the 5D that therefore cannot intrinsically be part of our physical universe.
Since this projection can be see inside our 4D world, it means that outside our 4D world, there is nothing of existence.
Really you have a lot of problems with the dimensions....it is just a problem of having some abstract or space intelligence....capacity..or vision...
Better we have to talk about 2Dspace and 3Dspace....if we lived in a 2D space (the sheet of a book)...also you will say that out the sheeet will be nothing?...but for every will be one universe (Flatland 2D)....possible the problem could be how to change of sheet...I agree that could be a problem....but not unsolve...you can put a sheet liking two sheets....
...are you understanding?
(to be continued...)
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
then where are they? maybe your post got lost, but I don't see any of your reasonings after my introduction of the 3 possibilities.
And so far you have not made a flaw in my reasoning just statements of that you believe A or B, or that you think there should be. If you want to disprove my reasoning you will have to quote a line or segment of my reasoning and tell me why my steps or assumptions are wrong or too or not too general for the proof to be valid or acceptable to you.
Well... let us see....our so great reasoning about three possibilities:
Then we have 3 possibilities, 1. There is an overlap of bubbles, 2. two bubbles border 3. bubbles do not overlap or touch at all.
1: If there is an overlap of bubbles then there is a flow of space-time due to the difference in expansion. Since a 'flow' isn't really possible there is a weird superposition of two bubbles having a very weird reaction either way, matter can exchange itself and hence the entropy of the whole world is broken and so is the second law of thermodynamics (for one of the universes I might add. But then again to the 'bubble' argument. Bubbles do not overlap unless they reside in a higher order dimensional space. This means that the 'overlap' is not necessarily at the (undefined) ' edge' of space, but could be anywhere! In any place at any time. Surely we would have noticed, and otherwise maybe we will. It is not unprovable and unfalsifiable either. So who knows, maybe such an overlap by change would only cause other bubbles to have their 2nd law of thermodynamics violated.
The second law of thermodynamics is only true within Our Universe...if it is closed..and if it expanding !!!...in other case this law has no sense...and could be different !!!...It is so easy.
1+2: The overlap in a bubble case is a single 5 Dimensional point, which would constitute in a 4D line in our universe. (1D extra, depending on the bubble-space dimensionality) This could be a dot in time of a line in space. Either way not provable and not falsifiable.
I agree...
2. two bubbles border there could also be a layer of edging, where one bubble 'presses' against the other. Then we can suffice with a 4D bubble space. Yet, this would cause spacetime to deform, and by observation we know this not to be true. So either we are again 'the single lucky bubble' or we can completely scratch the the idea of 4 Dimensional bubble space. Since I don't believe our universe/bubble should be special. I scratch it.
Why do you say "by observation we know this not to be true"...yes there are some observations of the Microwave Background Radiation of the Universe (made by NASA'sWMAP): http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J12/transparencies/11_Sunday_am/mcewen.pdf.
3: our bubbles do not overlap. In essence there is no difference in this hypothesis from a closed system. The effects and measurements would be the same and no.
Better we have to talk about 2Dspace and 3Dspace....if we lived in a 2D space (the sheet of a book)...also you will say that out the sheeet will be nothing?...but for every will be one universe (Flatland 2D)....possible the problem could be how to change of sheet...I agree that could be a problem....but not unsolve...you can put a sheet liking two sheets....
(to be continued...)
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
all my assertions are based upon experimental results
Let me see:
Bubbles do not overlap unless they reside in a higher order dimensional space
Yet, this would cause spacetime to deform, and by observation we know this not to be true.
if we cannot intrinsically observe something, it can never be part of our reality.
Why we cannot supose that the 4D universes ...reside within 4D - 3D - 2D sapace?.. do you know about the 6D Calabi-Yau space ?...they exist at Planck dimension and are linked by 3D space...did you know?....please, read about...
(To be continued...)
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Well then the argument still holds, if the space is the same, there is a 4D universe even beyond the CMB-radiation-front, which has the same laws the same everything as our observable universe, and it stretches out to infinity. Then as I reasoned above several times the universe can only be closed. That is what the entire thread was for.
OK..I understand your misunderstanding...I agree that the whole Universe is closed...but Our Universe...as it is only one buble inside the whole Universe ...could be Open.... and transfer energy and entropy with the other bubbles and ..also with the space (2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, ..., nD) there is in between...
(THE END)
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Is that a promise?
dapifo, I'll be straight-foward.
Your posts on this thread are logically absent or inconsistent ---> make no sense.
Then why are you trying to apply the laws of "this world" to areas where they are so obviously inapplicable? Even with these assumptions we cannot deduce or even remotely infer how these "other universes" fare in regards to their physical nature, even less in how they interact with ours.If there are several bubbles ... which in principle could be 3Dspace-1Dtime (as Nuestrp Universe) ... or 2Dspace-4Dspace-nDspace (+1 DTIME) ... and they there exixt in a higher level .... With Their own big-bangs .... differnt numberof atoms ... expanding, Stabilised or larger or smaller decreasing .... .... there will be different laws ... constants ... possible the speed of light Could be other and Also ... G (Gravity constant) Could be different ...
It doesn't seem like you're forming a consistent idea here; you're pulling stuff out of the air and mashing it together.
Well, we're above 99.9999% sure that we've observed a particle that behaves like a Higgs. And it's the most cryptic of the fundamental particles.Have you (or any bodyelse) see the neutrinos, gluons, bosons,...strings...?
Strings? No. But at least string theory is a mathematically derived, self-consistent hypothesis that attempts to predict and unite physical phenomena.
0,9999999983 percent to be a bit more exact
NO...only for PART 1Is that a promise?
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
OK...I understand that is not easy to understand...a possiby you don´t...I´ll try to explain it better
It is very easy....see my sign....the underlying laws of the WHOLE Univerrse must be the same...but I am sure that we still don´t know them. We only know a very small pat of them...and only valid to explain and model Our Universe....
Then Other Universes could have different models (laws) ...but if we know the whole universe ... we could link them...with some type of theory (Z-Theory...the real TOA)
That is not true...we didn´t see or observe the Higs particle...it has been a deductive work from the CERN tests...
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
If any other 'universe' can interact with this universe, then they are the same universe.
This certainly doesn't belong in the Physics forum.
Perhaps in Pseudo...
.
No that is not true...although could be a terminology problem...
Possible Our Universe had a Big Bang....tha space that contain our universe and other no had any big-bang.....
Last edited by dapifo; December 14th, 2012 at 09:13 AM. Reason: hat = had
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
I agree.
There is no scientific proof that the universe is unique. Nor is it proven that it is a closed system.
There are such speculations but there is no proof that there is an outside of our universe. nor that something exists outside the eventual outside of our universe. All we know is that there is an inside to our universe. We dont know the overall shape of our universe, all we know about is the so called "observable universe" anything outside that is guesswork.
Aha! you wonder if communication between universes is possible! It depends on the form of the universes and the form of the universe containing them. It really is speculative. Why dont you restate your thinking in easier models. Use a model of our universe as the universe containing universes...and construct mimiuniverses in it.
What are the characteristics of a universe? Whats wrong with using black holes as models of universes?Theres no finished proposal here, you barely make yourself understood. I have no idea what your finished proposal would look like so I have no idea of its eventual effects.
Ok I agree with you...that is why I am propossing other feasible alternatives....to discussed with creative science lovers...just discuss...and enjoy about the pros and cons of the various options.There is no scientific proof that the universe is unique. Nor is it proven that it is a closed system.
Some people like to talk about sports, politics or gossip --- I like to argue about what we do not know ... what might lie beyond.There are such speculations but there is no proof that there is an outside of our universe. nor that something exists outside the eventual outside of our universe. All we know is that there is an inside to our universe. We dont know the overall shape of our universe, all we know about is the so called "observable universe" anything outside that is guesswork.
OK...it is a good idea to use black holes as models of universes...they can interact and join...between themAha! you wonder if communication between universes is possible! It depends on the form of the universes and the form of the universe containing them. It really is speculative. Why dont you restate your thinking in easier models. Use a model of our universe as the universe containing universes...and construct mimiuniverses in it.
Whats wrong with using black holes as models of universes?
That is the question....have a look to the following thread (I think that there is the answer !!!):Theres no finished proposal here, you barely make yourself understood. I have no idea what your finished proposal would look like so I have no idea of its eventual effects.
Why the extra dimensions proposed by M-Theory will be rolled within Planck Dimension?
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Please, have a look to this post...It will give other view about your thiks and belives !!!
Why the extra dimensions proposed by M-Theory will be rolled within Planck Dimension?
Is that pseudscience for all you ?...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
So Our Universe (4D=3space+1time) is between the 6D (6space) Calabi-yau dimensions, and the higher dimensional space (5D= 4space+1time) "Bulk"
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
| « Solon...father of Atlantis? | Mans redistribution of atoms on earth » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
