My theory is basically the same theory as the Big Bang theory except that it goes one step further and tries to explain why the big bang happened, and it goes on to explain why there will be more Big Bangs and more Universes. My thinking is not based on mathematics, but I would like those who have some understanding of mathematics to try to argue for or against my scenario. Here is the main argument- It has been hypothesized that at the beginning of the Big Bang there was no matter or particles, but only energy. It was after our Universe expanded a certain amount that particles coalesced and physics as we know it set in. Well, if you had only 1/100,000 of the energy of the big bang in different big bang, isn't there reason to believe that we would get different particles? Perhaps the particles created after the Big Bang are a result of the spacetime and energy of our universe; a different universe would have different parameters and thus spawn different particles. If the spacetime of a tiny Big Bang was tiny, perhaps we would get particles proportionately tiny. I'm not saying we would get tiny versions of our protons and electrons, but some other kind of matter with it's own laws and structure. This hypothesis should be easy enough to prove- send a spaceship outside of our universe. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I hope this appeals to some of the particle physicists on these forums- can you try to stimulate a spacetime unlike our own?
How does this explain why the big bang happened? How does it predict that there will be more Big Bangs and more Universes, and under what conditions will they occur?
I haven't gotten to that part yet, it is a lengthy treatise.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! For now I am questioning some of the rules of our big bang and trying to see if they can be applied to a different but similar situation. A different big bang may have different amounts of energy, different amounts of dark matter and different dimensions in the very early universe. Could these things lead to different particles being formed?
the question is, how do you send a spaceship outside of our own universe? when we cant even go back to the moon.
Warp drives! If any of the stuff about the alcubierre drive is correct we can stretch space-time so that a ship moving below speed of light effectively moves faster than the speed of light. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yeah, but to me it seems that there should be different mixture of particles in any case. It seems that our own universe is governed to some degree by random chance; so is it not impossible that our laws are the way they are because of random chance? Perhaps in the case of different big bang different particles would form. If the big bang indeed unleashed the most elementary particles which were the predecessors of all other particles, I would guess that there should be some difference in matter formation depending on the initial parameters.
we will still end up in our own universe, just somewhere else. So question remains, how do we go into another universe, precisely?
I understand what you are thinking and perhaps this thread will get moved before we talk it out but one point comes to mind worth mentioning. You are proposing that a Big Bang can occur with various amounts of energy. It would seem more likely that there is a finite but critical capacity of energy that has to be accumulated at the site of the Big Bang in order to cause the event to occur. If that were the case then if there were other big bangs here and there across the greater universe, and if they all required that critical amount of energy to Bang, then they would all be similar in regard to the energy that goes into expansion. So your suggestion that a different amount of energy could cause different particles and different physics is suspect IMHO because all big bangs would contain that certain amount of energy content.
If I remember right this is what a closed universe is. If the universe is flat, or hyperbolic; and if we can travel faster than light, then there is perhaps a chance of escaping our universe. Yes, this is precisely what I have been thinking. But, there may be reasons why the critical energy may be different in different situations. I think that our Big Bang came from a Black Hole, one that used to be a part of a greater universe (which was perhaps born from a black hole as well). Black holes explode; and it seems that every black hole has it's own parameters that would shape the big bang. Supposedly a black hole has just two qualities- spin and temperature. If you believe that there is a true singularity at the middle of a black hole, then those two parameters are enough to alter the initial conditions of a big bang. However, if there is volume at the center of a black hole, being composed of the most elementary particles, then there may be other qualities that shape the explosion of black holes. These two parameters may alter the amount of mass and energy present in the Bang, and the spin may do some things to curvature of space or something. I would guess that something spinning would have centripetal force that would add to the force tearing a black hole apart.
The Alcubierre drive doesn't take you outside the universe. And it's already been shown to be unfeasible in practice.
OK, what makes them explode? I'm not sure about that but this is your thread so I grant you that could be true. I see what you are thinking. Black holes differ in spin and temperature and since they have this singularity in them and since black holes are refereed to as singularities then they could explode? Something is missing. I still want to know what makes them explode. Certainly if those conditions are true and if black holes can explode then initial conditions of the resulting big bangs could differ. However, I don't think that the term "singularity" represents a physical entity; it is a mathematical outcome that occurs when you divide by zero. If I am wrong you need to fill me in on that with a good link. But the better thing to do is explain how a black hole explodes.
This is still an open question. If you have 1000 big bangs, do you always see the same result? That is, do you always get a universe with protons and neutrons, and planets and suns and electrons? As it stands now, the answer seems to be no, and there is no unique result of a big bang. This is one of the ways to envision the string theory landscape Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Before the Alcubierre drive it was impossible both in theory and in practice. Now we just need to find a way to make it practical Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This is no good explanation, but here it goes- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6srN4idq1E at 4:10 exploding black holes are mentioned. There is also the question whether black holes shrink or not. Hawking hypothesized black hole radiation; however it is based on the uncertainty principle and quantum fluctuation. I have already said what I think about quantum fluctuations and the uncertainty principle, so I'm not sure if i can even agree to hawking radiation; it seems that if there is no uncertainty principle then black holes will not shrink and they will remain holes for all of eternity. It might not be protons and neutrons, but there is no limit on how much mass a black hole has to have. It is a matter of density - a density that can be achieved using as much matter as several atoms. However, as black holes get smaller and smaller in a series of universes, they will also take less time to evaporate and explode - meaning that there may be an asymptotic limit to how old the greater universe will get - towards the end of the greater universe smaller universes will be born, will thin out, and will form new universes in a matter of seconds perhaps. This is all relative however, because the particles and reactions will be that much faster; to them a femto-second may spell out the maximum age of a 'sun' .
I have watched that several times before. First on the theory of the very tiny; as they put it, space is filled with virtual particles in pairs that appear out of the background and annihilate themselves, maybe leaving an energy remnant that can do work by being useful in particle building. That theory may or may not be true but it would confirm that energy fills all space and the virtual particles are coaxed out of the background by changes in energy density, i.e. my personal view. If there is an energy density element to the equation that causes virtual particles to appear then more virtual particles will appear as the energy density increases. There of several trains of thought that can pick up there and the one I like is that once there is a quantum of energy in a quantum space, action is triggered. That action might be equal but opposite virtual particles, or that action might be quantum collapse. If when a quantum of energy occupies a tiny enough space then that energy might collapse into what I have been calling a high density spot but which could also be called a quantum black hole consisting of the tiniest possible meaningful amount of energy (the energy quantum). If the collapse compresses the quantum of energy to the limit of energy density beyond which it cannot be further compressed you would get a bounce. The bounce would change the collapse into expansion and the result is an expanding quantum wave of energy. That expanding quantum of energy could then go on to participate in subsequent quantum collapses when its wave intersects and overlaps with adjacent expanding waves. A new collapse could be triggered when the overlap of two converging waves accumulates a quantum of energy itself. Maybe not all of eternity. Eventually, even if there are no other expanding universes to interrupt the peaceful eternity of remnant black holes, they will gradually find each other and bigger and bigger accumulations will form. If there is a point where an accumulation of matter and energy from a growing accumulation like that reaches some limit of energy density due to compression of gravity, there could be some undiscovered physics that leads to the decay or burst of such an ultimate black hole, IMHO.
Its hard to imagine a universe with fundamentally different building blocks then the one we have now. After the BB it was really only H and He until stars starting producing heavier elements. If you change the initial energy output of the BB, I can only see it affecting the ratios of elements rather than spawn entire new elements or populating the universe with exotic materials.
I'm glad to see someone who thinks that way come out and say it. Another thing that supports the "similar universes and similar physics" view comes into play when you start thinking of the universe as the "greater" universe within which ours and any other big bang type universes would exist. If there was a long history of big bangs that are open and will potentially expand infinitely, they would have to intersect. If they were similar in size and physics, maybe completely the same in those respects, then the resulting convergence and subsequent big crunches that would form would have the same physics as well, IMHO. Also, a long history of big bangs across the greater universe would create an energy background of EM, dark matter, cold dead remnants of the past expansions, etc.; a complete CMBR at thermal equilibrium, homogeneous and isotropic with slight anisotropy too Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. This background would completely surround any new big bang and get incorporated into its energy content as it expands and equalizes with that background.
Well, not necessarily. If each universe is allowed to expand before it's black holes explode then the cosmic background would probably diminish by that point. Another requirement for new universes may be freedom from outside influence. If we create a black hole in the LHC, it may or may not be a universe of it's own. The idea that there is unique life in the tiniest bits of matter stretches far back to the ideas of Dr. Seuss. I will do more reading on the Big Bang to see if I can come up with some evidence to defend the theory that different Big Bang parameters would lead to different particles.
And why is that? Its not like our universe is dominated by what we call 'building blocks'. Most of our universe is composed of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
This is an analogy, so it may or may not help: Life as we know started on this planet, and all DNA share a single common ancestor. That does not mean a form of life has never emerged in other parts of the universe, we don't even know what's going on in our own galaxy for this matter. But we know that similar conditions can exist somewhere else. The composition of chemicals or gravitational positions may differ, but some stability would evolve its own more or less complex "life". Although they share and obey the same universal rules, our DNA and this assumptional planet's life code would not share a common ancestor. They are independent from each other, yet dependent to a common universe. We are separated from other galaxies with some unimaginable -but calculable- distances. Nothing in this universe is inherently "designed" to breach these distances; eventhough it allowed the existence of efficiently "designer" creature of ourselves: "We are the meaning of the universe"... No, we are not there yet, currently we are shit, we can't even leave the solar system. So my analogy says that the distance between another possible BB Artefact -A.K.A "Universe"- could be placed much further than zortrillion capacity of our computers could ever calculate. I don't know. However, this is a tricky issue: On the one hand, it is exciting to think, to assume, to imagine; or even one day, against all odds, to calculate and prove the existence of other universes. This simply adds another dimension into our ape perspective. On the other hand, we will also face the depressing reality of those universe(s): They must be sharing a bigger common area. Where does it stop? Is everything situated inside of a bigger thing? One's existence depends on the position in the hiararchy, there are always "upper realities". Yes, depressing but entertaining...
I find it entertaining more than depressing. We are physically limited as to what we can prove, or ever will be able to prove about the imponderables. What we know or can know, where we can go now or ever will go, and what time we have in our lives or even in the span of humanity's existence stack up to almost nothing, almost nowhere, almost never relative to the infinite. But I am consoled by the fact that we can ponder and contemplate and visualize all sorts of possibilities. Doing that is a pretty good consolation to those depressing limits that we face physically. Your comment about our position in the hierarchy reminded of "turtles all the way down".
