Multiverse = Several Big Bangs in One Universe?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What was wrong with that reply? He said it was spherical or disk shaped... a disk is flat isn't it? Why can't it be disk shaped? I'll accept that scientists now know the universe is flat, but that's only one dimension (for example height) what about the shape of it's length and width?

But hang on, is this the 'visible universe' we're talking about again?

We can only see 14 billion parsecs in any direction. Ok.
There may be only a slight curvature to this flat universe, if any. Got it.

Let's say there is a slight curvature. Let's also assume (for the purpose of this example) that this curvature is in all directions. This would mean it should, eventually, meet up.

Sounds awfully like the 'shell' of a 'sphere' to me. Which would beg the question - what's inside the 'shell'? For if the universe does for a 'shell' shape, the insides would be beyond our 'visible universe'.

Next, let's say there is a slight curvature, but only in two directions. This would form a cylinder, another theorised shape for the universe. Again, it would eventually meet up, but then where do the other two directions lead? And what's inside the cylinder?

Finally the entirely flat universe. No curvature. For this example I'm saying it's disk shaped (flat but round). What's above the disk? Below it?

I'm not trying to sound like a smart-ass, god knows I'm far from it, but I really don't understand this bad attitude you seem to have.

Are people taking surveys of what scientists think to determine what "most scientists" think? I would accept such a source but I'm not aware of it for this topic.

This seems abit patronising to me.

Until your first post this thread was made up of what every thread on here should be - people having conversations/debates about items/theories/whatever in an open minded environment, with mistakes kindly pointed out and explained.

However your post suggests a 'superior' attitude, as if we're children and your some kind of teacher putting us all in our place.

Cheer up, it's just a thread

[edit on 20-8-2010 by kai22]

Originally posted by kai22
What was wrong with that reply? He said it was spherical or disk shaped... a disk is flat isn't it? Why can't it be disk shaped?

However your post suggests a 'superior' attitude, as if we're children and your some kind of teacher putting us all in our place.

Well make up your mind, first you ask a question and then you complain about me teaching (which I have taught university courses by the way).If you don't want me to teach I won't but then why are you asking questions if you don't want to learn?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I don't have a problem with you answering my questions, that's what I posted them for. My problem was replies like this:

You didn't believe this reply did you? It's completely wrong about the shape of the universe, it's flat, or so close to flat we can't tell the difference:

He couldn't remember which it was, it's an honest mistake. As I pointed out, he's not neccessarily wrong for saying it's disk shaped, if anything it ties in with the universe being flat.

Another reply I can't say I'm fond of is this one:

Are people taking surveys of what scientists think to determine what "most scientists" think? I would accept such a source but I'm not aware of it for this topic.

I assumed, wrongly, that that was what most scientists agreed on. I was shown to be wrong, held my hands up to being wrong:

My bad. I thought it was generally agreed that the/our universe is infinate in itself and may/may not form a ring of sorts. I also thought that this/our universe was theorised to be one of many, but not in the way I was talking about.

Therefore I don't see the need for your above comment, and found it patronising.

I won't argue that you know more about this than me, if you've taught courses then that's obvious. I just ask that you be fair and decent in your responses.

But anyway, your answers did teach me, and for that I'm grateful

Originally posted by kai22
What was wrong with that reply? He said it was spherical or disk shaped... a disk is flat isn't it? Why can't it be disk shaped?

Originally posted by kai22
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I don't have a problem with you answering my questions, that's what I posted them for. My problem was replies like this:

You didn't believe this reply did you? It's completely wrong about the shape of the universe, it's flat, or so close to flat we can't tell the difference:

He couldn't remember which it was, it's an honest mistake. As I pointed out, he's not neccessarily wrong for saying it's disk shaped, if anything it ties in with the universe being flat.

The motto of the site is "deny ignorance". If you think he's not wrong, post any evidence you can find for the universe being disk shaped. You already admit it's not sphere shaped. And you posted yourself it's flat, or at least it's so close to flat that our measurements indicate that it is.

Part of the problem is that you're thinking in 3 dimensions, but to answer questions about the shape of the universe, we need to think in 4 dimensions:

Shape_of_the_Universe

The shape of the Universe is an informal name for a subject of investigation within physical cosmology which describes the geometry of the universe including both local geometry and global geometry.

More formally, the subject in practice investigates which 3-manifold corresponds to the spatial section in comoving coordinates of the 4-dimensional space-time of the Universe.

These are the three shapes being considered in that 4-dimensional aspect when we refer to flat (which means something a little different in 4 dimensions than in 3, though similar):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c3f7a006afba.jpg[/atsimg]

There are three categories for the possible spatial geometries of constant curvature, depending on the sign of the curvature. If the curvature is exactly zero, then the local geometry is flat; if it is positive, then the local geometry is spherical, and if it is negative then the local geometry is hyperbolic.

As you can see, none of these shapes are a disk, it's either flat, sphere, or "saddle" shaped, but then I've oversimplified what's in that article, if you want a deeper understanding, you can read that, it seems pretty close to accurate.

In contrast to this 4 dimensional view, the observable universe is basically spherical but that's another subject entirely and that doesn't reflect the true shape of the universe beyond the observable.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I find this very interesting and I hope you don't mind if I try to understand what you're saying by way of a thought experiment...

If what you are saying about the universe and being flat - adding that to the idea that space time is curved - creating the "around the world" effect you are speaking of, is how things could be... Is it not logical to think that the distance involved to make this "loop" could then take so much time - as we perceive time - that when one returned to point "A" it would have changed so much that one wouldn't be able to recognize it, or reference any specific points or "landmarks" thus creating a sort of "virtual infinity" for all intents and purposes?

If I'm way off base here, I do apologize. This is just how my imagination is putting this all together.

Thanks!

[edit on 8/20/10 by Hefficide]

O.k. lets get stuck in here...

Two possibilities exist.

1. Our universe is Finite.
2. Our universe is Infinite.

Let’s deal with this by breaking down what the properties of the universe would be for each possibility.

1. Our universe is Finite.

When we say Finite we mean there is a total upper limit to values within a system.

So for example a large container could only ever hold a certain value of matter within it. Once the container is full, it cannot receive more and the only way to change the contents would be to empty the container and fill it again.

This actually resembles what we find within physics, it is not possible to destroy matter, only to transmute it into either other matter and/or energy. It is also not possible to create energy from nothing (don't get started on zero point or ways seemingly to get around newton’s laws of thermo dynamics yet, if you want to ask me about this...)

What’s more is in a finite universe a big bang would exhibit cooling over time as it expands, this is exactly what we see within our universe. If our universe were to continuously expand then the temperature would reach absolute zero, a point and state of no energy.

If this is indeed the fate of the universe then again, it would indicate that the universe is indeed finite.

2. Our universe is Infinite.

In an infinite universe all values and probabilities are realised. In other words to take our previous example if a container was infinite in volume, no matter how much matter you put into it, there would still be enough room to put in infinitely more matter.

In math infinity is not a number, it is way of thinking. For example if you have infinity and you minus 1 you still have infinity. If you have infinity and you take away 95% of it... you still have infinity. If you add infinity to infinity you have well infinity....

This contravenes what we observe as this would suggest that matter/energy can be created and there is an infinite capacity to do so.

In this model the universe does not uniformly cool as it expands as new matter and energy are created continuously.

In an infinite universe one must consider the idea of potential. In an infinite universe all potentials are realised. Everything you can think of is happening, every possible outcome that could be exists somewhere in the universe.

What’s more is in an infinite universe everything you see hear and touch is present within the universe in infinite quantities... That means there are an infinite number of you and an infinite number of me.

------------------

O.K.

So this is where things start to get odd...

at the level of reality we observe around us concur to the effects of a universe that is Finite, but what about at the quantum scale or Planck scale??

At the Planck length which is 10−35 meters our observable universe has dissolved into a chaotic ocean of froth. Dimensions and time all cease to have meaning here. This is the fundamental nature of our space-time.

At this scale the universe has more to do with potential than measurability. Randomness or chaos gives rise to order as in any self-organising systems.
What I'm trying to get at here is what you see as our finite universe is not actually the whole story. It is the result of self-organisation of an infinite chaotic system.

So the question is the universe infinite or finite can be answered by saying it is both one and the same, depending on what level of reality you probe.

Now to address your earlier question of big bangs and the universe. The universe we observe may create many many many big bangs. The figure could be something like 10 to the power of 35 big bangs per square nanometres per nanosecond....

The reason you do not see them is simply because the big bang creates its own space beyond our ability to reach. A bit like a wrenching off from this universe.

Like this...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd0817ba20b9.jpg[/atsimg]

Image courtesy of NewScientist.

I hope this answers some of your questions, if not please feel free to ask further.

All the best,

Korg.

Originally posted by Hefficide
If what you are saying about the universe and being flat - adding that to the idea that space time is curved -

The three diagrams I posted above show three different values for the curvature of space-time.

* If the curvature is zero, then Ω = 1, and the universe is flat
* If there is positive curvature (Ω > 1) and the local geometry is spherical
* if there is negative curvature (Ω < 1) and local geometry is hyperbolic

If Michio Kaku is right and the Ω is about equal to 1 but just a little bit over, then the universe may be closed or spherical, or something approximating a sphere like a soccer ball, as this article suggests:

Universe is Finite, "Soccer Ball"-Shaped, Study Hints

Now a new study of astronomical data only recently available hints at a possible answer: The universe is finite and bears a rough resemblance to a soccer ball or, more accurately, a dodecahedron, a 12-sided volume bounded by pentagons...
Weeks cautions that his team's model of a finite, dodecahedral-shaped universe, while promising, is hardly a proven theory. "There's more work to be done, he said. "It could be affirmed, or it could be refuted."

Whether there is a slight curvature but it's just so slight that it looks flat is an open question. I haven't seen that soccer ball theory confirmed yet, but it may still be an open question too pending the "more work to be done" the author mentions.

So I think the consensus is that it's apparently flat but we are open to the possibility of there being a slight positive curvature, but it would be very slight since it's so hard to measure if it's there.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thank you both for the information and resources!!!

Hey Korg, good to see you again and thanks for joining the discussion. Could you post a link to the picture? I can't read the writing haha.

Arbitrageur

Part of the problem is that you're thinking in 3 dimensions, but to answer questions about the shape of the universe, we need to think in 4 dimensions:

I fully agree. Honestly. While thinking of the universe in 3 dimensions, Hefficide wouldn't be wrong. But guess you're right that the universe has to be viewed in 4 dimensions, which (I assume) would change the whole thing.

Truth is, I'm really having to try to keep up at the moment. I did see something about the fourth dimension being space-time (?? - unsure on this at the moment, I have to be up early and don't have time to check... according to the missus anyway... ) but since I was already struggling I didn't give it much of a look-at.

I have to apologise for any misunderstandings on my part. It's quite alot to take in for someone who never even went to college

A quote from myself earlier in the thread -

As you've no doubt guessed I have a high interest in this area of science, but a low understanding of it.

Either way, thanks to you and everyone else for contributing to this thread. I knew I would be mistaken in part of my theory, but I find it's the best way to learn

Thanks again

reply to post by kai22


Hmmm...doesnt make much sense.

I believe that the universe is finite.

It is expanding at the moment, but when it stops, and begins to collapse, that point will be its limit, thus it will hold a definate shape for a while.

But how could there be multiple big bangs within a universe created by one?

Its more likely our universe exists within a black hole, and the blackholes within our universe, harbor other uinverses.

reply to post by 8fl0z


Our universe in a blackhole, other blackholes harbouring other universes... never heard that one before, kinda cool I guess

I've had a few drinks, so forgive me for any mistakes I make.

In your theory, you seem to be classing the universe as the area in which the 'debris' from the Big Bang occupies. The more the 'debris' expands, the more the universe expands. The only thing is - what comes after that area?

It seems a few people think the universe is finite, but I've yet to see a theory of how it ends. In fairness, it's incredibly hard to comprehend the universe being infinite, though there is a theory supporting this in the form of the 'Mandlebrot set'.

In regards to your 'universe in a blackhole' theory, I quite like it. From what I've seen, the only theory connecting blackholes and universes is the 'String Theory', in which the blckholes are a gateway to another universe, as apposed to a 'container' for it.

Thanks for the post much appreciated.

EDIT:

You ask how multiple Big Bangs can occur in a universe that's creatd by a Big Bang. Thing is, my theory is based on an ever-existing universe, unlimited in size. I said at the start of the thread that the universe is infinite - this is obviously debatable - but my theory doesn't rely on that.

We can only see 14 million parsecs in any direction (thanks for that Arbitrageur :up this is the visible universe.

For now I'm going to class this 'visible' universe as 'our' universe.

As an example, say we are in the centre of where the big bang happened (I know we're not, but bare with me on this). Now let's say that the 'debris' has only expanded 13 million parsecs in every direction, leaving a 1 million parsec 'buffer zone' if you like. This is our universe.

So from our central position, head 28 million parsecs in one direction. In this place, another big bang occurred at the same time as ours and has also expanded 13 million parsecs plus the 1 million parsec 'buffer zone'. This could be called another universe.

We cannot see this other universe as it's outside of our visual range, so as far as we know, it doesn't exist.

Therefore, in this one space, two seperate big bangs have occurred, two seperate universes exist, leading to the space containing these universes as a multiverse.

I am only explaining my initial theory. I know it is flawed, I myself can't answer my own questions about it. But I hope you now know what the hell I was on about.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by kai22]

reply to post by kai22


In your theory, is the universe expanding?

Because if it is, it had to have had a starting point, and eventually all of the matter will spread out so much, the universe collapses in on itself (possibly the start of a new big bang?), thus the universe would not be infinite.

The only way for the universe to be infinite, is if it was stationary. If it was infinite, it would expand forever? Impossible, like i said above, it will eventually become unstable and collapse.

edit: for more understanding, if you havent already, research M-Theory, but i dont think it supports the Multiverse theory :/

[edit on 22-8-2010 by 8fl0z]

OP --

Just to clarify something: The big bang theory isn't saying that the big bang happened inside a universe, but rather the theory said that the big bang created the universe -- and I mean the "fabric" of the universe, not just the stuff in it.

It's not like the universe was sitting empty waiting for a big bang (or multiple bangs) to fill it with stuff. Rather, the universe was not even there until the big bang, or so the theory goes.

Therefore, perhaps other big bangs DID occur, but they would have occurred outside our universe (wherever the heck that is ), not multiple big bangs within the same universe.



[edit on 8/23/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

OK, it seems I'm out of my depth at the moment. I've even contemplated abandoning this post, due to the increasing frustration I'm feeling. I must point out, I'm not frustrated at people finding holes in my theory, any of the replies on this thread nor any of you in general. I'm simply feeling as though I'm lost when it comes to the subject, and the frustration stems from there. I hate not being able to understand something I'm so interested in.

You're probably wondering why I would have bothered posting my theory, and I can't say I'd blame you, especially since I'm constantly being proven to know very little about the subject as a whole.

When I posted my theory, I never expected to start a revolution. I'm greatly intrigued by the mysteries of the universe, and I'm doing the best I can to understand even the basics but with each new reply I realise just how little I actually understand.

For example, one thing that has come up repeatedly is the 'size' of the universe, ie infinite/finite. I assumed it was accepted that it was infinite (I was wrong to do so) and off we went. In truth, I don't see how it could be either, both pose huge questions that (as far as I'm aware) haven't been/can't be answered.

The universe being infinite is just plain incomprehensible. How can something continue forever? Is it possible?

On the other hand, if the universe is finite in size, where does it end? HOW does it end? What is beyond that end?

Then we have the question of how the universe started. As Soylent rightly pointed out (I've since checked, thanks for that :up the big bang theory says the big bang created the universe. But what were the 'ingredients' for the big bang situated in before the bang itself? There must have been a space before the event for the event to have happened in the first place.

8fl0z In my opinion, I don't see how the universe can expand. To me, the universe is a vacuum that has matter/anti-matter/dark matter and energy/dark energy within it. I don't understand how these contents can expand a vacuum. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just don't see how it would work. Of course, if anyone has opinions or knowledge on this, I'm more than willing to listen.

Soylent

It's not like the universe was sitting empty waiting for a big bang (or multiple bangs) to fill it with stuff.

At the start of your reply, you were pointing out the actual theory and where I'd gone wrong, but is the above quote your own opinion? The reason I ask is because, to me at least, it actually makes more sense for the universe to be 'waiting' for the big bang, if you were to go with the theory of big bangs working in cycles anyway.

Thanks again for the replies, I ask that you bare with me while I get my head around some of the finer details of the theories in question. Also, if anything I have said contradicts what I said earlier in my theory then let me know and I'll explain it (if I can).



[edit on 24-8-2010 by kai22]

reply to post by kai22


Well it is, and it can be proven using mathematics, if the universe isnt expanding, then what explains the galaxies in the sky moving away from us? How is it that when we take a deep field picture, we see galaxies as they were 10 billion years ago? It has to be expanding.

If it is, and it is also infinite, as said, it will collapse, and theoretically begin a new universe.

reply to post by 8fl0z


The debris from the big bang (the galaxies, matter etc) is moving away from us/each other, that's fair enough. But the only way you can use that to say the universe is expanding is to call this debris the universe, if you see what I mean? And then what is this universe expanding into?

Then you mention about the universe expanding and if it is infinite, then it will eventually collapse on itself. But in that scenario the universe can't be infinite, as it will reach a finite point before it collapses.

If we can see 14 million parsecs in any direction, then can we see past the field of debris created by the big bang? If so, how much by?

Personally, I believe there are areas where energy is being 'injected' into our universe - and it has expanded and developed upon itself over time - and has the potential to become infinite - or was infinite from the start (which becomes difficult to logically reconcile with a developing/growing universe).

I have no real evidence to support this concept - and observation of interstellar phenomena is still immature enough that major violations of conservation of energy would not yet be observed on that scale.

However, as to the actual shape of the universe - I like to think of the concept of any infinite surface area. If you were actually on the surface of a sphere, for instance, you could move about freely in two dimensions. However, your position on the sphere would be fixed. You would never change angular position, since the distance between any two points on the sphere is infinite. Thus, you would actually be moving through a form of 'subspace' that could be envisioned as a radii - your entire universe that you could ever see or envision is all contained along the same axial coordinates - but there are many other universes around (and exist as part of the same sphere). Thus - the possibility for interacting with those other infinite regions of the sphere has interesting implications and limitations.

It's more or less a big what-if thought process I went through one time, and it's not really meant to hold much mathematical water or explain anything, just help to envision the weird world of 'dimensions' and to think outside of standard 'to work and back' thought processes.

In either case - my point is that the way space appears has little relevance on how it may actually exist on a mechanical level.