Starship Asterisk*

Case wrote:The beginning of the universe is a singularity: a point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted. If, by a wild stretch of imagination, anything happened 'before' that, there is no way of information about that being measurable after the BB. Not only is the question unanswerable, but it is also meaningless: The singularity itself created a starting point for time as we know it.

SO are our black holes the big bang of some alternative universe?

NoelC wrote:All I can say is that they've set the simulation cycle time pretty small in the Matrix.

And regarding things happening "instantaneously", don't tunneling particles at the quantum level appear at the far side of an obstruction without the passage of time?

I guess they simplified the programming of this grand simulation a bit and hoped no one would notice. Or maybe there are a few bugs in the code.

-Noel

Instantaneous if it is entanglement being observed, or, it can be seconds or even minutes if observing "Phantom Particles" in a high energy collider.

bystander wrote:

Case wrote:The beginning of the universe is a singularity: a point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted. If, by a wild stretch of imagination, anything happened 'before' that, there is no way of information about that being measurable after the BB. Not only is the question unanswerable, but it is also meaningless: The singularity itself created a starting point for time as we know it.

SO are our black holes the big bang of some alternative universe?

It is an unqualified assumption the universe started from a "Singularity", a singularity is one of the lesser probabilities of how exotic matter behaves.

An alternative to the Big Bang is the Big Fizz where the creation of Space/time and Gravity/Mass was not created in one event but over time. If Space/Time continues to be generated, it could explain the accelerating expansion of the universe.

Black Holes alternative universes? Most likely not, but maybe.

Questions:

Exactly what "observation(s)" support "space" as being further generated?

What exactly are the implications if there were a vastly larger space?

How does the M-Theory play into all of this and does this Theory support a larger volume of "space(s)" then we currently accept?

One of the observations that the BB fails to explain is the extremely cold and uniform tempature of space. Could a vastly larger volume of space account for this mystery?

Martin wrote:One of the observations that the BB fails to explain is the extremely cold and uniform tempature of space. Could a vastly larger volume of space account for this mystery?

Doesn't the Inflationary model of the Big Bang resolve those particular issues?

I don't believe it does and it has yet to be reproduced in simulations or explained using the accepted dynamics of the BB. If I remember correctly the BB, in our theoretical bubble of a single expanding all inclusive universe, we would expect a higher residule temp with vast areas of space at extremely different temps.

Quote:
"...in our theoretical bubble of a single expanding all inclusive universe, we would expect a higher residule temp with vast areas of space at extremely different temps."

Nope.

It's not what i read about the BB. And it's not what was expected. From the BB theory, they expect a slight hard to detect difference in the residue temp in all the universe and it's what they find. Wich fit with the BB theory for now.
First time i heard about expecting a high difference in temperature.

Now i'm curious to see and read why and expanding bubble univers will not get a uniform temp as it expand?

Dr. Skeptic wrote:It is an unqualified assumption the universe started from a "Singularity", a singularity is one of the lesser probabilities of how exotic matter behaves.

An alternative to the Big Bang is the Big Fizz where the creation of Space/time and Gravity/Mass was not created in one event but over time. If Space/Time continues to be generated, it could explain the accelerating expansion of the universe.

Black Holes alternative universes? Most likely not, but maybe.

That was really a tongue-in-cheek question based on general relativity.

According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe at the instance of the big bang was a singularity. Also according to general relativity, singularities exist inside black holes.

So where is all that mass and energy the black hole is consuming going to? Ahh... maybe somebody elses big bang.

speculation is not science

Assumed that the BB started inside an already existing space (outer space), but created its own space (inner space) while expanding, could dark matter be the outer space as seen from the inner space?

Also, if 2 singularities interact, assume there's a one dimensional space between them. If 3 singularities interact, there's a two dimensional space between them. If 4 singularities interact, there's a three dimensional space between them. Could the BB have been started by 4 (or more) singularities interacting, thus creating our 3D space? It might explain super expansion, which didn't happen in this case because there was instant 3D space of a particular size between them from the start.

I hope I've explained my thoughts well enough here.

So where is all that mass and energy the black hole is consuming going to? Ahh... maybe somebody elses big bang.

The only way Gravity/Mass escapes the interior of a Black Hole's Event Horizon is gravity waves. What is inside a Black Hole's Event Horizon is pure speculation - there are no workable models on the behavior of the exotic state of Mass/Energy in a BH environment.

Will my questions not be addressed?

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

So where is all that mass and energy the black hole is consuming going to? Ahh... maybe somebody elses big bang.

The only way Gravity/Mass escapes the interior of a Black Hole's Event Horizon is gravity waves. What is inside a Black Hole's Event Horizon is pure speculation - there are no workable models on the behavior of the exotic state of Mass/Energy in a BH environment.

And Hawking radiation. And GR predicts what goes on inside the event horizon just fine, until you get to the singularity. Which is why we need a workable quantum gravity model.

Martin wrote:Will my questions not be addressed?

Wonderful questions, it would take volumes of books to adequately answer them for you.

Reviving an old thread. Regarding the August 27 2007 APOD showing an image of a huge void a billion light years across in both cosmic background radiation data and in radio astronomy data.

Seeking comments regarding this week's news (November 26 2007)regarding the claim by Laura Mersini-Houghton at Chapel Hill that this void could represent the "imprint" of another universe. I don't see how this is possible, but maybe someone can enlighten me as to how she came up with this idea. I guess I am looking for an explanation as to how another universe could even be postulated as creating an apparent hole or void in ours?

offtopic: I find the absence of prominent comon features in this image pair somewhat interesting.

NoelC wrote:...regarding things happening "instantaneously", don't tunneling particles at the quantum level appear at the far side of an obstruction without the passage of time?..

I guess this can be swallowed by imagineing a particle already being there before, implicitly - as long as its Ψ is defined there (even if 0). Any quantum physicians here?

goredsox wrote:I guess I am looking for an explanation as to how another universe could even be postulated as creating an apparent hole or void in ours?

Imagine there is a "hole" connecting us to alien universe. Then, radiation from our universe would go through this hole to their. Now, if their universe is dead cold, nothing or very little would come in our way, so we would see it as some kind of dark spot.

I can see the newspaper headlines now;

Scientists Prove Universe is Swiss Cheese


Was God really suffering from an acute case of swiss-cheese-mind when he created everything? Or are these supervoids simply the wavefunction nodes where particles recycle back into the awareable universe from when they get beyond the border? On the very large scale of perspective, these voids would appear as the 'foam' of quantum virtualness. Volumes where potentialities are expressed between the spin geometries' cell edges.

They might also be seen as likened unto the 'plasma tufting' on the surface of the Sun, areas where the recycling back-in particles congregate for awhile, until an over-equilibrium preponderance is achieved, and that tuft or cell, then devolves into a different stasis, like it coalesces into a galaxy or string of galaxies as an electrical potential attracts a flow from the surrounding volume of spacetime, and the resulting current causes changes in this particular swiss cheese void. The void now changes into what we would call 'normal' space-time-matter, and a new wavefunction node for the recycling back-in from beyond the border particles must develop. These voids come and go like the plasma tufts on the surface of the Sun.
- - - - - -

Pass me another cold one, this ham and swiss on rye has legs beyond one beer !

There is much more to the universe than the matter and energy that human beings see flying apart from each other created by the Big Bang. There's also matter and energy from other previous Big Bangs; and Harry is correct in his statement that matter (energy too) in the universe tends to cluster together creating great voids. This is not by accident, but by design. Great Walls are DNA. The universe is ALIVE.

goredsox wrote:Reviving an old thread. Regarding the August 27 2007 APOD showing an image of a huge void a billion light years across in both cosmic background radiation data and in radio astronomy data.

Seeking comments regarding this week's news (November 26 2007)regarding the claim by Laura Mersini-Houghton at Chapel Hill that this void could represent the "imprint" of another universe. I don't see how this is possible, but maybe someone can enlighten me as to how she came up with this idea. I guess I am looking for an explanation as to how another universe could even be postulated as creating an apparent hole or void in ours?

I have no answer re the specific (Laura) claim.

However, in general, I think (all?) such claims (if they come from physicists) depend upon a theory (or theories) in which GR (General Relativity) is a limit, as Newtonian gravity is a limit in GR; or the String Theory equivalent. In some of these theories, for example, gravity seems so weak to us because it is actually an N-dimensional thing (where N > 4), and that these other universes exist, parallel to ours, perhaps as little as a millimetre away. Lisa Randall's book ('Warped Passages', I think it's called) covers this in some detail. The void would then be a 'place' where two universes came closer than ~1 mm.

Without having read any paper by Laura*, I think the claim, as reported, is a little speculative. (but perhaps no more than anything involving String Theory).

* ADS gives 11 papers by her, most of which seem to deal with the landscape of String Theory solutions; e.g. "Cosmological Avatars of the Landscape II: CMB and LSS Signatures"

Questions:

1. Exactly what "observation(s)" support "space" as being further generated?

2. What exactly are the implications if there were a vastly larger space?

3. How does the M-Theory play into all of this and does this Theory support a larger volume of "space(s)" then we currently accept?

4. One of the observations that the BB fails to explain is the extremely cold and uniform tempature of space. Could a vastly larger volume of space account for this mystery?


1. I have seen nor heard of any observations that support the hypothesis that 'Space' is expanding. It is a misinterpretation of observations that led to the premise that space is expanding by the thought that galaxies are moving further apart due to the incorrect interpretation of the 'red shift' .

2. If 'space' is expanding , then that begs the question of; what is beyond that expanding wall or edge. It would by logic require something beyond that space is expanding into. Or it would require space by itself to be self creating. Neither conclusion is particularly a logical conclusion, and therefor it is an illogical premise to adhere to.

3. I can't answer that one, or I do not understand well enough to speak about it.

4. Yes, where did all the energy go? (from the BB)

Why is there a lower limit to the emptiness of space (or energy density of space), the entropic floor.

Why is there an upper limit to energy density, like a black hole; or stellar density before it must explode from various reasons.

Is there a happy medium of energy density, like the proton and electron.

Why does the energy density of matter (the electric charge of the electron and the rest mass of the proton) have such a stable and indefinite lifespan in time.

2. If 'space' is expanding , then that begs the question of; what is beyond that expanding wall or edge. It would by logic require something beyond that space is expanding into. Or it would require space by itself to be self creating. Neither conclusion is particularly a logical conclusion, and therefor it is an illogical premise to adhere to.

A finite limit to space is not an illogical premise.

Q. What happens to time when approaching a Black Hole?

A. Time speeds up. (relative to a more distant observer)

Q. What happens to distances when approaching a BH

A. They become shorter. (relatively)

Mass/Gravity DOES CREATE Space/Time

Now extrapolate what happens to the reverse. As Mass/Gravity becomes less dense, time slows and distances expand. If there was a Big Bang event that created Space/Time by introducing Mass/Gravity, Space/Time's size would be limited to the propagation of Mass/Gravity's effect (speed of light + expansion rate).

This explains why there is no edge to the universe, it ends at a single point that would take the age of the universe to cross.

The understandings we acquire on our safe little planet do not apply to the grandness of the cosmos, our Earthly perceptions do not make a good "measuring stick".

Nothingness is infinite outside the universe. No space, no time, no mass, no gravity.
Is there something else out there that the String (or M)- theory may project?
There is no way to know (yet).

http://www.physorg.com/news130673436.html

A good read on this topic.