Carson
01-01-08, 04:05 PM
I was thinking that the Big Bang which we are part of may not be the only one.
Just to clarify my perspective; my understanding of the definition of the Universe is the present expansion of the(our) Big Bang, and does not include the space which our Universe is expanding into.
For sake of example, and to give the space in which the Universe it expanding into a finite measurement, lets say the Houston Astrodome represents that space, and our Universe is presently the relative size of a base ball within that Astrodome of space.
There could be many other Big Bangs occurring throughout that space. Perhaps a 5 Billion year old universe the size of a golf ball, a 50 billion year old universe the size of a basket ball and so on, with Trillions of light years separating them. With this, the word universe is inappropriately applied, and there would need to be an intermediate designation for those expanding bubbles of matter, or perhaps they can keep the designation and the larger field is the Omniverse.
Expecting that I am not the first to think this, I asked a prominent cosmologist for directions of study along this line of thought. Instead of getting feedback on this line of thought, I got " to become up to date with the modern perspective...read my book"
Most topics of multiple universes are under the heading of "parallel universes", which really isn't what I'm pursuing.
I found that Starthane Xyzth posted the following on 05-09-04, 07:06 AM:
"Perhaps a fundamentally new approach to cosmology will be needed eventually. How about several simultaneous big bangs, with their expanding ejecta overlapping; the interference pattern between the multiple shockwave-fronts might explain those famous ripples in spacetime, the slight variations in the CMB. The thorough mixing of originally distinct fireballs could also be a reason for the large-scale homogeneity of the Universe."
I suspect that Starthane may not have been the first either.:) Any thoughts on this topic, and can anyone give advice on who else may have addressed this? Thx!
Just to clarify my perspective; my understanding of the definition of the Universe is the present expansion of the(our) Big Bang, and does not include the space which our Universe is expanding into.
For sake of example, and to give the space in which the Universe it expanding into a finite measurement, lets say the Houston Astrodome represents that space, and our Universe is presently the relative size of a base ball within that Astrodome of space.
There could be many other Big Bangs occurring throughout that space. Perhaps a 5 Billion year old universe the size of a golf ball, a 50 billion year old universe the size of a basket ball and so on, with Trillions of light years separating them. With this, the word universe is inappropriately applied, and there would need to be an intermediate designation for those expanding bubbles of matter, or perhaps they can keep the designation and the larger field is the Omniverse.
Expecting that I am not the first to think this, I asked a prominent cosmologist for directions of study along this line of thought. Instead of getting feedback on this line of thought, I got " to become up to date with the modern perspective...read my book"
Most topics of multiple universes are under the heading of "parallel universes", which really isn't what I'm pursuing.
I found that Starthane Xyzth posted the following on 05-09-04, 07:06 AM:
"Perhaps a fundamentally new approach to cosmology will be needed eventually. How about several simultaneous big bangs, with their expanding ejecta overlapping; the interference pattern between the multiple shockwave-fronts might explain those famous ripples in spacetime, the slight variations in the CMB. The thorough mixing of originally distinct fireballs could also be a reason for the large-scale homogeneity of the Universe."
I suspect that Starthane may not have been the first either.:) Any thoughts on this topic, and can anyone give advice on who else may have addressed this? Thx!