Bubble Universes and Dark Matter?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by BatM, Jun 26, 2001.

  1. BatM Member At Large Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    408
    Let me start by saying that I am neither an astronomer nor a physicist, so what I'm about to suggest may be very obviously wrong, but...

    Often, the universe is described as a bubble that began with the Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. What if, instead, the universe is actually a large collection of bubbles (like you might see in a soap dish)? Could it have been that the universe not only began with a single Big Bang, but was followed up with multiple smaller bangs that created pockets or bubbles connected to the original "bubble"?

    My thought is that, perhaps, this model could explain dark matter in that the "missing" matter is not missing after all, but rather is just hidden in the side pockets. If you imagine two overlapping circles and you stood anywhere inside those circles, you would only be able to see those things in a direct line that did not go outside of the circles. Therefore, there may be items that may not be visible to you, but those items might have measurable effects on what you could see. Scaling this idea up is what lead me to think of the multi-bubble universe.

    Does this make sense?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    Bubble analogy

    Hi BatM,

    It's an interesting thought. But I think you have taken the analogy of the bubble a bit too literally.
    The thing is that towards the center of the 'bubble' there lies the past of the universe and outside the bubble lies its/our future.
    Hmm, I can imagine this isn't very helpful.

    My point is just that in the bubble analogy, outside the bubble that is our universe there is no space but time. The spatial dimensions (in the analogy reduced to two) are contained in the shell of the bubble, and the other dimension ('distance to the center of the bubble', so to say) is the temporal dimension.

    hope it is of any help.
    Merlijn.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Caleb Redeemed Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Actually, the radial direction is not neccessarily the temporal direction. It could be just an extra dimension through which space is moving as time passes (sounds subtle, but there's a difference).

    Also, the bubble analogy is only valid if the universe has spherical curvature. As I understand it, most scientists now think the universe is flat. (the third, less atractive possibility is that it is parabolically-shapped like a saddle)

    ~Caleb

    ===================
    <i>Correction: above, I say parabolically-shaped, I really meant hyperbolic. Sorry for the misunderstanding.</i>
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2001
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BatM Member At Large Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    408
    Adjusting the Bubble...

    Yeah, I forgot the fourth dimension in the bubble (time), but does that make a difference? Again, could it be that, if the universe was born in a Big Bang, the galaxies (etc.) might have been born in smaller bangs? If so, what effect might those bangs have had on space-time created by the Big Bang? Also, given this, why couldn't the bubble analogy apply even if the base universe is flat (or parabolic)?
     
  8. KneD Le Penseur Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    206
    As far I know...no.
    We know pretty well how galaxies are formed, I don't know it exactly so I ain't gonna try to explain.
    But I know it is not by 'bangs'.

    What I do believe...
    Maybe we are just insight the bubble of a small bang......so the universe as we know it is just a small bubble in a much bigger universe.
    so that we're expanding insight another universe.
    It would be very cool, just wonder how it would be to collide with another bubble....(ok, I'll stop...I'm talking to musch sci-fi right now)

    But probably we'll never be able to find out, we can't look through the visual 'barrier' on the edge of our bubble.
    (No I don't believe in worm-holes, and we'll never end up in some paralell-universe)
     
  9. willakitty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    48
    READ TIME MAGAZINE

    Hey, you guys! I just read (well really it was a week ago so the information might be obselete now) an article in Time Zine about the Bug U and its strange behavior...They say the universe is in fact flat (I almost feel as if I'll one day regret saying that as most scientists in the day of Columbus swore that the earth was flat but...)but in a manner that everything that started off at point A will continue on the point B and after. It's not circular(no curvature) or saddle shaped. It's a big sphere shaped cosmos with everything radiating out of the center (like those cool little lamps you see at Spencer's. You know, the ones with the little rods of fiberglass stuff stuck into this lite source so that only the ends shine brightly while the length of the rod glows this soft color? Anyway...) it's like that. Cool?
     
  10. Caleb Redeemed Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    A flat, expanding universe? That lends credibillity to the "Flat finite Cosmology" (aka "White Hole Cosmology") I mentioned, in which time dialation would allow billions of years to pass by in the outer reaches of space, while Earth, near the center somewhere, would only have been around for the last 6 - 8 thousand years since God created it. It's the Creationist's version of the Big Bang.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ~Caleb
     
  11. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Sound logical to me....

    But what if our God who created us in seven days actually took sevendays to write the program in his cosmic computer to test a chaos theory turned in to our reality!!!

    Then Angels must be another program separate from this one.

    Another thought. If we had a quantum computer and try to simulate the big bang, will we create a world too?
     
  12. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,189
    Think bigger

    No, you are all thinking too small.

    First the concept of multiple bubble universes has been around for sometime, it is more accurately named plasma theory. I posted a fairly long post on the subject on this site about Jan 2000.

    Now consider that the true larger universe is infinite. Now consider that events can occur, perhaps a collision between some types of massively high-energy fundamental particles that cause a big bang. Consider that these events are occurring randomly throughout the greater universe. Consider that the distances between such events are so vast that the expanding bubbles from each big bang are never likely to overlap.

    The article in Time magazine was quite good and showed the timeline for the life of a big bang universe, or in our hypothesis, a single bubble universe. The estimated age is 10^100 years, that is 10 followed by 100 zeroes. But in an infinite universe the size remains insignificant.

    For the universe to be truly infinite in a way that allows the continuous creation of big bang events then there must be an infinite supply of whatever causes big bangs. And at this point that would be pure conjecture.

    Cris
     
  13. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    So many things to consider.....

    Then consider this too. Folks, the universe that we experience is nothing but a simulation in a quantum fluctuation that came to being through the interaction of elementary particles in another reality. That is why being inside a simulation of possibilities we see infinite everywhere.

    The Indians called it Maya which means the world is an Illusion - a gigantic one. And the "Atma" is a consciousness that can not be destroyed or created - perhaps meaning that the outer bubble of the reality exists to create new inner bubbles every so often.

    There are written info on how to step out of this reality to another one - which means they did consider the possiblity of multiple realities. (This Hindu idea was expanded in a startrek episode where wesly crusher steps out of this reality....)
     
  14. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    Hi Cris,

    This doesn't make sense. (I am not used to reading things from you that don't make sense.) I have problems with the part of 'distances' that are 'vast'. It resembles too much the rooms in a house model.

    Why not make the 'greater universe' relatively small, but with a lot of dimensions, so that many a 'smaller universe' can exist in the same 'space', but in not coinciding dimensions.
    or whatever
    maybe we should try to think like Q.

    Merlijn
     
  15. rde Eukaryotic specimen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    You sure you're in the right place, then?
    Actually, less Star Trek, more science would be the order of the day. 'Dimensions' aren't extra universes where species 8472 live; they're properties of this universe. M-theory tells us there are eleven dimensions; that doesn't mean alternate universes where Hitler won world war two and I'm not incredibly witty and handsome. They're spatial and temporal dimensions, just like height, width, tempus fugit.

    If you want multiple universes, relax; science comes to the rescue with inflation theory, which posits a cosmological cornucopia, with our universe being but one of many.
     
  16. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,189
    Infinity again

    Merlijn,

    Well thank you very much, and I apologize for the disappointment.

    I agree I was not very precise, the offending clause is subjective and redundant. However, my intention was to provide a different perspective of size.

    However, I’m not quite sure what part you think does not make sense. But I’ll try to re-word the concept in a moment.

    Yes you can imagine many possibilities but your proposal is introducing additional complexity where none is required based on observations. Here I am imposing Occam’s Razor, “one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything”.

    We have two prominent prevailing theories.

    1. Big bang theory indicates at least one big bang has occurred and that this was probably triggered by some event that we as yet do not understand.

    2. The known universe is expanding and will eventually dissipate into a cold void. The time estimated for this final end is 10^100 years.

    The term ‘universe’ is all encompassing and includes everything: Matter, energy, and everything beyond. To talk of smaller universes or a larger universe makes no sense. So I’ll introduce a new term. A big bang event creates a matter/energy cloud (ME Cloud). Such a cloud will expand with corresponding thinning density and will eventually dissipate; this is consistent with current theory. The term 'the known universe' as used above should be repalced by the term 'our local ME cloud'.

    At this point there is no reason to believe that the universe has any boundaries, i.e. it may be infinite. Infinity is not simply a large numerical value; infinity cannot be defined numerically. Infinity is simply something without boundaries and as such can never be proved, since you can never travel far enough to verify there are no boundaries, i.e. it would be an infinite task and could never end.

    My current variation on plasma theory is that multiple ME clouds can exist concurrently and are likely to all be in different states of expansion. Our own ME cloud in which we live is simply one insignificant entity among many others. This forecast is also consistent with all human experiences that have projected our place in the universe. E.g. we thought the Earth was the center, and then the sun was the center, then the galaxy, then the big bang.

    When we can determine the cause of a big bang then we may be able to determine the frequency of such events. Since we have not been able to observe any big bangs other than the one we are currently experiencing then the frequency of such events may well be that they are relatively rare. This could mean that the distances between ME clouds would be sufficiently large that they would not overlap, but that does not have to be true in every case.

    If the universe is infinite then there could also be an infinite number of ME clouds.

    Does that help?
    Cris
     
  17. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Re: Infinity again

    To be clear on these definitions, our universe = local universe = local ME Cloud.

    If we introduce INFINITY, then there is multiverse, multi-ME clouds

    Suppose we go through a blackhole and go to the otherside where matter exists (because it got sucked out from our universe, are we calling that a separate universe or is it still our universe?

    My head is hurting by just thinking about it....
     
  18. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,189
    Only ONE Universe

    Kmguru,

    I wouldn’t explain it that way but I think you understand; it might just be a matter of wording.

    In a three dimensional paradigm there can be only ONE universe. The current perception is that what we can observe is the universe. I am seriously questioning that perception and am proposing that what people think of the entire universe is just an ME cloud, and the true universe comprises multiple ME clouds.

    The term ‘multiverse’ has no meaning in the sense that it conflicts with the definition of universe, i.e. there can be only one instance.

    The idea of going through a black hole, I believe, was introduced by science fiction writers at a time when black holes were less well understood. You cannot go through a black hole. Conventional matter would be simply compressed – you would die. Remember most of what you observe as apparent solid matter is really mostly empty space. An atom for example is largely empty space; the electrons and nuclei consume only a relatively minute portion of the volume within the scope of an atom.

    Hope that helps.
    Cris
     
  19. Merlijn curious cat Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,014
    Cris,
    Aha, now we are getting somewhere: I do not believe the above, but at least we have it clear (for now) what we are talking about.

    In this theory chances are very slim that we do not read any signal from an extremely old 'universe' somewhere. The amount of energy emitted by an entire universe must be immense...
    I know the distances are mind boggling vast, but still.
    One reason could be that in other 'universes' there is a different set of natural laws and constants. In that case, there are no "constants" in the entire 'Greater Universe' (lets' call it the Cosmos), meaning that the regions of the Cosmos outside our local universe (ME) are NOT continuous with ours. Therefore, I would like to dismiss anything outside our ME - in this option. We are still alone.
    Another option may be that the energy / information just cannot reach us. In that case, I would like us to reconsider the question of 'nothingness' if there are regions in the Cosmos that are truly void of anything, is there space-time? I would doubt it. In that case, again, it is discontinuous.

    Just one more thing: I do not believe Occam's Razor is in place. the theories (large Cosmos and small Cosmos with more dimensions) are both as far fetched to my opinion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Merlijn

    -------- later that evening:
    I realise I have been a bit sloppy here. Apologies.
    By the way: I do not take any theory from SF series serious. It's just for fun when I talk about Vulcans or Q.
    Live long and prosper!
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2001
  20. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Cris,
    You are correct. Sometimes some of us get confused - facts with SF because we do not use cosmic information in daily life. Black Hole as coined by John Wheeler is a state of compressed matter and may be energy?

    Well, that brings me to ask this question:

    Somewhere I read that, "...based on the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, if energy fluctuations is big enough it can momentarily cause, for instance, an electron and its antimatter companion the positron to reupt into existence, even if the region was initially empty!"

    Then could we say that the probability is high to create a big bang if a balck hole could explode after taking in a lot of matter? Since the massive gravitation warps space-time in a black hole, can it be that, when it explodes, it will create multiple fractures in space-time and hence multiple space-times?

    Are these extra space-times Calibi-Yau space?

    So that we do not go through this every few months, Cris - since you seem to be more knowledge on this, put together an article that we can refer to it - if a new member asks a question in this area.

    Sciforums is willing to supply a space to store the articles. I can too. Thanks
     
  21. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,189
    Merlijn ,

    So now who is being imprecise and subjective? Immense? Mind boggling vast? Everything is relative. But, hey, I know what you mean.

    I think here you have indeed introduced complexity that cannot be supported. You are suggesting an extraordinary condition of which we have no way to gauge the implications. Our entire experience of physical laws is with our own ME cloud. We have no evidence that would support the hypothesis that such laws would not exist everywhere. However, we do have evidence that a big bang has occurred, so it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that such an event can occur again, or has occurred before or is currently happening elsewhere. Further, since our big bang either created the current physical laws or simply conformed to them, then it is again reasonable to assume, especially with the lack of any evidence to the contrary, that other big bangs would create or be restrained by the same laws.

    Let’s consider what you might mean by nothingness or a void. Given two objects A and B and nothing between them then they will be touching each other. If they are any distance apart then there is empty space between them. Something that is empty is not the same as nothing. You are simply questioning the condition of existence. If there is a space between the two objects then that space exists, and since we have no evidence that time cannot exist then we must assume that that space conforms to a relativistic universe. By the fact that you are referencing a void, then clearly that void exists and must be part of space-time. The only way you can conclude that space-time does not exist between two objects is when they are touching each other.

    I hope I have shown you above that I am only extending current theories to areas that have not been fully considered. I have strictly not introduced radically different concepts or rules. In this sense I believe I am consistent with Occam’s Razor.

    The same goes for you too.

    Cris
     
  22. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,189
    Kmguru,

    I remember back in the 1970s having to study bubble-chamber photographs from the accelerator at Cern. Tracking the paths of sub-atomic particles was great fun. I understand that even today similar mechanisms are used but the high energies of physics research have increased. I remember reading a little while ago that such experiments were showing the constant destruction and creation of sub-atomic matter in these particle collisions.

    I’ve seen this discussed elsewhere. The idea centered around the concept of a critical mass where once exceeded the attractive forces of the black hole collapse and the result would be an enormous explosion – possibly a big bang.

    This idea carried more weight when the idea of an ME cloud would eventually collapse instead of continually expanding. However, there does seem to be evidence suggesting that galaxies are colliding and that at the center of galaxies are many black holes. It seems quite likely that such black holes would merge and exert even greater power and consume all surrounding matter and energy. Perhaps at some point such a black hole might explode in the form of a big bang. But clearly if the ‘universe’ is expanding then some matter will escape the attraction of some black holes. In the case of a collapsing universe I hypothesized that all black holes would merge and consume all matter and energy that existed and at that point the cycle would begin again with a new big bang. But, while that would have been an idealistic solution it doesn’t any longer match with current theory.

    However, there is some evidence that supports that a big bang might occur while an existing cloud is still expanding. The age of the current known universe has been put at around 15 Billion years. However, (and I can’t find the article at the moment), the age of some galaxies has been placed at ages much older than that. Where did they come from? If the current big bang is only 15 billion years old then any older galaxies must have been created by other earlier big bangs. If that is true then we could perhaps see other big bangs occur long before the forecasted end of the universe in 10^100 years time.

    I really don’t have any knowledge of what might be meant by a space-time fracture outside of science fiction.

    I do like the idea of storing some links to factual articles at a fixed page. I’ll give that idea some thought. But really I’m no more than just an interested amateur.

    Cris
     
  23. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Cool... You are too modest. The way the amateur thing works is:

    Do you know that (of course you do!) planets and stars have been named after amateurs?

    A large number of contributions to technology (I am in technology not pure science field) is made by people from a field other than their own. In late seventies I came to computer field as an amateur. Today I am the recognized expert.

    So amateur, expert, let us not quibble over semantics. You are doing a great job. And many thanks for sharing that with us.
     

Share This Page