Multiverse and the expanding universe

Scientists, with the information that they have gathered, have concluded that the universe is constantly expanding at an accelerating rate. Is this because this universe is "pulling" energy from another universe?

Sources:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3137
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=179051#10
http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/10/article1/article1.html
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/45.htm?&debut=160xt/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is a cosmology called eternal inflation characterized by "pockets" of inflation that experience different and varying rates of inflation. Each pocket could be thought of as separate making the greater universe a multiverse. When one pocket inflates slower than another pocket, there could be interplay between them in the form of an energy exchange.

There is no evidence of pockets in our expansion or of eternal inflation, though it is in vogue among theorists (758,000 hits on Google).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you start off with a multiverse and the BB was just the shifting of matter and energy from that to a potential universe, ours (so conservation of matter and energy), then if energy is continually pumped into our universe, so causing it to continue to expand (while elsewhere in the multiverse, a universe or two is shrinking.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem with the Eternal Inflation Cosmology is the all of the pockets are expanding, just at different and variable rates. Ultimately you end up with a de Sitter space that is just energy expanding without matter.

Eternal inflation is a way of concealing the beginning but any inflationary model requires a beginning. It is concealed by the fact the histories of the pockets are obscured as the pockets merge and emerge with and from other pockets even though all of the pockets always are inflating. But all inflationary models require a beginning, and any beginning requires something from nothing.

I would say that differently.

If you start off with a multiverse composed of energy that had always existed, then the BB event (not a big bang as in BBT) would be the release of energy from a big crunch that had accumulated from the greater universe (the multiverse). The accumulation of the energy occured before the BB event and was sufficient to fuel the entire expansion.

This re-phrasing makes possible the expansion without the need for energy to be continually pumped in to our expanding arena. The expansion is caused by the energy density equalization between the huge energy released by the BB event as it equalizes with the lower energy density of the greater universe made up of the multiple arenas, i.e. the multiverse.

 

So energy is still conserved?

 

Yes, at least Eternal Inflation does conserve energy, but it also allows entropy to continually progress.

The alternative that I was suggesting to Kaneda not only conserves energy, but it defeats entropy since the collapse of matter into big crunches converts energy in existing matter and radiation back into potential energy and thus reverses entropy on an arena by arena basis.

 

I cannot see a Big crunch coming as the universe is expanding faster. Not because of the so-called dark energy but because gravity crawls along at light speed. As everything gets further away from everything else, ever less gravity from other sources can reach it so it would accelerate.

 

From the perspective within our expanding arena, you are right.

But if the galaxies in our arena are carried by their momentum out into the greater universe beyond our arena (our expanding known universe is an arena within a greater universe) ...

If our arena is one of a potentially infinite number of similar arenas as I predict, some expanding with galaxies that have separation momentum, and some contracting into big crunches, then ...

A contracting arena uses gravity to gather the galactic remnants from expanding arenas that have played out ...

A big crunch fails from within when the density becomes too great for matter to exist as we know it.

When matter fails to function, gravity is not emitted from it and gravity fails.

The failed big crunch bursts to release the potential energy of the "negated" matter that accumulated under the maximum energy density of the core.

Once expansion begins, the extremely high energy density released by the burst of the big crunch is reduced as expansion proceeds, matter forms, stars and galaxies form and have expansion momentum.

An expanding arena has played out when the high energy density of the arena has equalized with the lower energy density of the greater universe. The galaxies have joined the greater universe as remanats of their played out arena.

Big crunches form out there in the greater universe because the galactic remnants of a history of arenas that have formed and played out are out there mixing and merging in swirling rendezvous

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

The conception of the Multiverse to explain why this universe is "just right" to explain why life evolved is very similar to the Creationist's usage of the Flood to explain the existence of fossils. Barmy.

Look, in a thousand years (god, or evolution willing) our understanding of how life came into being will be very different from today- Guaranteed.

Let's not invent stupid interventions to support our points of view.

 

No.

 

The arena landscape is no more barmy or stupid, to use your words, than theorizing that the entire universe emerged from a zero volume, infinitely dense "point space" as I suspect you would prefer.

Can you say, "something from nothing", because that is what I think you are promoting. At least I am in accord with the conservation of energy. Ahem, of course that is because my cosmology says energy has always existed.

I'm not exactly alone in suggesting an alternative cosmology.

 

A man of few words.

 

The Multiverse has been invented to deal with data that is inconvenient.
In doing that, I say that its proponents are doing exactly the same as creationists do.

 

Inconvenient? What is it that is inconvenient? What gets less inconvenient with an arena landscape instead of BBT?

I beg to differ. If you want to distance your self from creationists why wouldn't you find it preferable to consider a universe that has always existed?

And if you want to distance yourself from creationists why would you prefer a cosmology that implies that the universe came from nothing? I always thought that BBT, with the implied zero volume, infinitely dense beginning was pretty close to what creationists were saying.

Share your thinking with me. I'm not so set in my cosmology that I won't consider rational rebuttals. And even though I'm on this list, that doesn't mean they are all barmy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

I sometimes ask, but not once has anyone been able to tell me, does the standard model that implies "something from nothing" ever address that implication and explain how our expanding universe did not come from "nothing", let alone how it did come from nothing?

I take it back, the answer I get is, "we don't know". To me that means you don't know and you can't think of a way that the universe didn't come from nothing. If that is it, then my idea about cosmology being an arena landscape should have some appeal.

In my view all cosmologies are built on the body of scientific knowledge and differ only in slight degrees on theory. There are alternative cosmologies that could encompass all of the standard particle model that is confirmed, and much of the theory. They could use Einstein's field equations combined with the future unification of forces to explain gravity and mass.

So no one needs to be locked on BBT, string theory, or quantum physics exclusively, because the future standard cosmology is likely to encompass elements of all of them.

An arena landscape, energy that cannot be created or destroyed, matter being quantized, quantum action being the fundamental force in a universe that is potentially infinite and that has always existed solves the "something from nothing" problem of BBT and creation, IMHO.

 

I am sure the Kaptain will reply in good time, but his objection appears to be to the underlying philosophy, which one might describe as 'twisting facts to fit a viewpoint' for creationists and 'twisting viewpoints to fit the fact' for certain kinds of cosmologists. The common element in both is 'twisting'.

 

Well, it is hard to argue with that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

But just to be clear, are you saying that big bang theory including inflation has no twists and turns? No, of course you're not, because they are full of them.

And is this what you call twisting: How does BBT explain how our universe came from nothing? Or put in another way, how does BBT explain how it isn't implying that our universe came from nothing? Like I say, if there was any rational answer to this question, wouldn't the mathematicians and physicists in this community be willing to provide the answer.

Alternative cosmologies come about because the standard cosmology modified for inflation has too many twists and turns after all of these years IMHO.

 

Oh, I agree completely. I'm the wrong person to debate that with. I amm uncomfortable with any BB cosmology on philosophical grounds. Since the observational evidence is generally more compelling for some form of BB than for anything else I generally keep my mouth shut. But I don't have to like it.

 

This is kind of a long post just to suggest a book, but ... maybe reading the post about the book and what people say about it will be like a quick read comparably

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

THE CULT OF THE BIG BANG - Was there A Bang? © 1995 William C. Mitchell

The big bang cosmology that is almost universally accepted as all but proven fact by the majority of cosmologists and scientists in related fields, may be in serious trouble. Virtually every book and every media article that bears any relationship to cosmology refers to a big bang that happened 10 to 15 billion years ago. The authors of that material occasionally mention a technical difficulty or two concerning the big bang, but almost invariably explain that those will soon be cleared up by a little more effort. There also have been occasional articles by those of opposing views that point out one or more serious flaws in big bang theory, but those writers are invariably dismissed by the established intelligentsia as misguided big bang bashers.

Until now there has been no attempt to gather all of the many big bang problems into a single document and to examine each of those in a consistent, rational manner. This book attempts to do just that. Both the many old, and some newer problems are presented and examined. In addition, serious questions are brought up regarding the validity of the alleged proofs of that theory. That is done in a manner that is readily understandable by those who have a general background in modern science.
Initial chapters introduce the topics of relativity, particle physics and quantum theory as related to current big bang cosmology. Standard big bang theory and its flaws are then presented. The newer inflationary version of big bang theory is also discussed. In order not to discredit the prevailing theory without offering alternatives, some of those are mentioned, and one is presented in some detail. This book, is recommended to skeptics who would like to examine some ideas that question the accepted cosmology.
From the Back Cover:

The Cult of the BIG BANG - Was There A Bang?

A definitive cosmological treatise Background is presented on relativity, particle physics and quantum theory as needed for an understanding of standard Big Bang Theory and the modifications of inflation theory. Those theories are introduced in an understandable manner. Next, the many flaws of Big Bang Theory, old and new, are described. Some solutions - based on scientific grounds - to some of those problems are proposed, and a possible alternative cosmology is presented. Why those theorists who adhere to Big Bang Theory present the appearance of cultists is also explained. Now that the flaws of Big Bang Theory have for the first time been gathered and presented in a single document, their combined impact cannot be ignored. The credibility of the Big Bang has been forever destroyed.

Response to The Cult of the Big Bang:

"Unheralded, unknown, and unbiased by any model leanings, William Mitchell's CULT OF THE BIG BANG masterfully exposes the groupthink that forces standard model cosmologists to reach far beyond the bounds of scientific fact to proclaim they have discovered artifacts that prove the creation' of the universe." - Anthony L. Peratt, plasma physics researcher and cosmologist at the Los Alamos National Laboratories

"I found (your book) to be a very scholarly and eloquent debunking of the Big Bang.... You have a remarkably ability to pick the villains in the field.... Progress (in the acceptance of alternate cosmologies) will require breaking the hold which academic science has on the media and financial support.... Keep up the good work. It is a long hard struggle." - Halton C. Arp, astronomer and cosmologist at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Germany

"You have raised valid points regarding the Big Bang Cosmology which has now become almost like a theology. I do hope that a sound assessment of cosmology will eventually be made." - Jayant V. Narlikar, Director, Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics in India

From The Preface:

Big Bang cosmology is so thoroughly entrenched that it is accepted as virtual truth throughout the scientific community and, as a result, throughout the general populace. Until a couple of years ago, despite some nagging concerns, I had accepted the prevailing Big Bang Theory. If it was acceptable to the great minds of the cosmological world, it certainly must have a lot going for it. But as my interest in the subject grew, and my retirement provided time for more study, problems multiplied and doubts increased. Cosmology articles and books would mention a problem here and there, but almost invariably they would be dismissed as of little consequence: insignificant aberrations to be cleared up after a little more effort was expended in support of the prevailing view. Once aware of this pattern, it became clear that enormous effort had been spent, and continues to be spent in support of the Big Bang. Obviously that is not the method of impartial research that is the hallmark of pure science. How could good and talented men in search of truth participate in these endeavors? Other forces must be at work to corrupt the process. As will be discussed in the text, the answer to that question is not the intentional sins of individuals, but merely the way the system works, resulting in what I call have facetiously called The Cult of the Big Bang.

 

Arp is seen as a smaller scale Hoyle: smart chap, just got the wrong end of the stick and is now looking foolish because he won't let go.

Plasma physicists? It's a sort of weird pathology, isn't it? You can prove anything with cherry picking.

But thank you for the recommendation. I shall take a look at it.