Skip to comments.Is the universe a bubble? Let's check: Making the multiverse hypothesis testable
Posted on 07/19/2014 9:37:03 AM PDT by onedoug
Scientists are working to bring the multiverse hypothesis, which to some sounds like a fanciful tale, firmly into the realm of testable science. Never mind the Big Bang; in the beginning was the vacuum. The vacuum simmered with energy (variously called dark energy, vacuum energy, the inflation field, or the Higgs field). Like water in a pot, this high energy began to evaporate -- bubbles formed.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
However, it also in no way invalidates God. In fact, on further reflection, it only tends to strengthen my faith in Him, as the grandeur of His magnificence becomes all the clearer as we approach Him in the mathematical limit.
All I know is I like girls with bubbly personalities.
Some days, I think our universe is just a big bubble floating up from the backside of a five year old boy’s swimming suit in the swimming pool.
Reminds me of the old joke about ‘get your own dirt’. The ‘vacuum’ has time and space, so where/when came the time and space?
These statements show that the article is not science:
“The vacuum simmered with energy”
There is nothing in a perfect vacuum. So there can not be any energy in a perfect vacuum.
If the idiot means a partial vacuum, then he is not talking about the beginning of the universe.
“each of these bubbles was a universe”
This is not science. It’s science fiction.
“is working to bring the multiverse hypothesis firmly into the realm of testable science”
Sorry, idiot, it is not testable. There is no transfer of information from the universe to a point outside it,
(because there is no point outside the universe.)
The part about simulating the universe and creating a simulation program to test the hypothesis of a multiverse doesn’t deserve an answer.
Sorry that you don’t seem to grasp either science or religion.
Here’s a nickel. Go to WalMart and buy yourself a sense of humor.
There are several serious fundamental flaws fully acknowledged by everyone in the field with even the basic Big Bang theory. It’s why inflation theory was invented —to explain away the flaws. However, inflation theory is even more controversial. Many prominent people in the field of cosmology don’t like the theory. They say it’s too contrived and easy to manipulate the numbers.
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaSeries.htm http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p7.htm
Problems with the Big Bang
The hot big bang theory has been extremely successful in correlating the observable properties of our Universe. However, there are some difficulties associated with the big bang theory. These difficulties are not so much errors as they are assumptions that are necessary but that do not have a fundamental justification. The required discussion is technical, so we will be content with a rather superficial statement of the three basic problems that are associated with the big bang and how they might be cured by a new idea that arises from considering the implications of elementary particle physics for cosmology.
The Horizon Problem
We have already encountered the horizon problem in conjunction with the discussion of the cosmic microwave background: when we look at the microwave background radiation coming from widely separated parts of the sky, it can be shown that these regions are too separated to have been able to have ever communicated with each other even with signals travelling at light velocity. Thus, how did they know to have almost exactly the same temperature? This general problem is called the horizon problem, because the inability to have received a signal from some distant source because of the finite speed of light is termed a horizon in cosmology. Thus, in the standard big bang theory we must simply assume the required level of uniformity.
The Flatness Problem
The experimental evidence is that the present Universe has very low geometrical curvature in its spacetime (it is nearly flat). Theoretical arguments that are well established but too complex to go into here suggest that this is a very unlikely result of the evolution of the Universe from the big bang, unless the initial curvature is confined to an incredibly narrow range of possibilities. While this is not impossible, it does not seem very natural.
The Monopole Problem
The only plausible theory in elementary particle physics for how nuclei in the present universe were created in the big bang requires the use of what are called Grand Unified Theories (GUTs). In these theories, at very high temperatures such as those found in the instants after the Universe was created the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces were (contrary to the situation today) indistinguishable from each other. We say that they were unified into a single force. Although there is as yet no certain evidence for the validity of such theories, there is strong theoretical reason to believe that they will eventually turn out to be essentially correct. Our current understanding of elementary particle physics indicates that such theories should produce very massive particles called magnetic monopoles, and that there should be many such monopoles in the Universe today. However, no one has ever found such a particle. So the final problem is: where are the monopoles?
The Inflationary Universe
The preceding problems with the big bang can be alleviated all at once (at least in principle), by a new kind of cosmology called the inflationary universe.
In the Brane.
Makes my feel loopy,
Makes me go ‘nsane
Without doubt, the SINGLE BEST, MOST SUCCINCT and MOST WIDELY SEEN explanation of everything involved in this debate is the following:
One of the rare scientific pieces excellent for both the more technically oriented and lay persons amongst us. More than 2,450,000 hits!!
Thanks for that, really great production quality.
Like space aliens: finding them would be proof of something, but not finding them doesn’t make the physicists disbelieve.
"Afterward, of course, when people found out how to take into account correctly the spin of the electron, the discrepancy between the results of applying Schrodingers relativistic equation and the experiments was completely cleared up.
"I think there is a moral to this story, namely that it is more important to have beauty in ones equations than to have them fit experiment. If Schrodinger had been more confident of his work, he could have published it some months earlier, and he could have published a more accurate equation. That equation is now known as the Klein-Gordon equation, although it was really discovered by Schrodinger, and in fact was discovered by Schrodinger before he discovered his nonrelativistic treatment of the hydrogen atom. It seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in ones equations, and if one has really a sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress. If there is not complete agreement between the results of ones work and experiment, one should not allow oneself to be too discouraged, because the discrepancy may well be due to minor features that are not properly taken into account and that will get cleared up with further developments of the theory." --Paul Dirac
And how can one have beauty without God in one's life? It seems a non-sequiter.
I believe God derived the function we discovered as mathematics. If He hadn't, these sentences could never have been read here as there'd be no one to read them anyway.
You seem really hung up on the word “idiot”. But, if that floats your boat....
A lot of physicists lament the idea that so many of their colleagues are wasting their careers on the “science fiction” of M-Theory. Though isn’t any quantum theorist doing the same by extension? They brought us nuclear technology, and it works, even despite what humans may subsequently do with it.
I am not a professional scientist (however I wish I might have been). Thus I’m just another American commenting on the passing scene, as is my right. Take it or leave it.
Cosmology heads-up! And the linked-to page has links to all sorts of interesting, but related, stuff...
Thank you for posting this thread.
It is a welcome relief from all the politics.
Okay, smarty pants- give us a clue; as to the start, end or in between. Thanks.
Sure it does. Everything deserves an answer.
The answer is... none of the theories are correct.
We have a winner!
We cannot blame people for becoming confused about differences between scientific "fact" versus "law" versus "theory" versus "hypothesis" versus "S.W.A.G."*, when those are not clearly pointed out by most popular science reporters.
But ALL this multiverse-inflation bed-time story is at best SWAG, hoping desperately to become a respected, testable hypothesis.
Of course, there's no problem with that -- everyone loves a good bed-time story, but let us not confuse ourselves into thinking there's something more to it.
There's not. Yet.
*SWAG = scientific wild *ssed guess
Thank you. That’s what I was thinking.
So your very first assertion is WRONG. Obviously you've never studied quantum mechanics. There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum because of virtual particles. Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem gives us the mechanism by which we can understand why particles are constantly appearing and annihilating each other, even in what should be a "perfect" vacuum. This behavior is well documented and well known (and serves as the basis of other well-known cosmological theories like Hawking Radiation from black holes). So it's obvious that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. And that's just from the first assertion you gave...
Thanks for the heads up!
I’ve got to remember to ping you to such stuff.
The beauty in M-Theory is that reduces, naturally, to general relativity in the mathematical limit of everyday experience.
No other theoretical framework has ever wedded GR to the quantum realm so well. It is this that drives whole careers into M-Theory.
As more refinement is teased from the results so far at CERN’s big ring particle collider, particularly the almost certainty in having observed the Higgs boson, we’ll obtain more and more information about matter and energy’s sub-structure.
As there is no ‘ad hoc’ objection to the physics yet therein, it seems to me that at least some physicists and mathematicians should look into it.
Yes, even at the risk of their careers.
There is nothing in a perfect vacuum. So there can not be any energy in a perfect vacuum.
Actually, you are wrong about that. The vacuum is the most massive and energetic object in the Universe.
Thanks, I’d like that.
Can bubbles ‘form’ in a vacuum ?