Posted on 11/29/2006 4:19:47 PM PST by LibWhacker
Is this a joke? No, say a bunch of physicists. One day, it may be possible for a person to create a universe!
This is not going to happen tomorrow. Not even close. But according to Columbia University physics professor Brian Greene, it is theoretically not impossible (which is his way of saying the possibilities are not zero) that one day, a person could build a universe.
The very idea is so startling it's hard to know what this means.
Think about it this way: One day (far off, no doubt), it may be possible to go into a laboratory on Earth, create a "seed" -- a device that could grow into a universe -- and then there would have to be a way to get that seed, on command, to safely expand into a separate, infinite, unexplorable but very real alternate universe.
Got that?
This isn't Greene's notion. But he was willing to describe, in very broad outline, how it might work.
The seed, he suggests, could be a black hole. Not the big black holes that sit near the centers of so many galaxies, but what he calls a "mini black hole." Black holes, he says, don't have to be big. They can, in theory, be very small.
I asked him how small, and together we conducted an imaginary (very imaginary) experiment. If you listen to my interview, you will hear us build a mini black hole from an ordinary watermelon.
It's a fanciful experiment done with imaginary sound effects, but it playfully suggests these mini black holes might be manufactured one day. There may even be a real-life attempt. Plans are afoot to detect mini black holes at the new Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.
Greene also describes a kind of energy, called a "repulsive force," that might be capable of turning that seed into a new universe. The problem is, no one is yet sure how this force works or why. But Eduardo Guendelman, a physicist at Ben Gurion University in Beer Sheva, Israel, and Nobuyuki Sakai and his team at Yamagata University in Japan are working on the problem right now.
But suppose it is possible to create something that grows infinitely and becomes a universe somewhere else, why do it if you can't go and visit your creation? If you can't pop in, take a look and come back, why bother?
In the July 8, 2006 issue, New Scientist writer Zeeya Merali put that question to Stanford cosmologist Andre Linde.
"I sat down and really thought about why we should even care about creating a universe in the laboratory, " he told New Scientist, "We don't seem to be able to communicate with it at all."
Once it's formed, the inventor couldn't meet its inhabitants, mine its minerals, collect souvenirs or judge his or her success. The biblical god who many believe created our universe inspected us on the first through sixth day and decided that what He'd done "was good."
That's not an option for the human scientist who creates.
So why do it? Well, Greene says given the chance to make a universe of his own, "I might have a little trouble resisting this possibility. Just because it's so curious, this idea that because of your volitional act, you are creating a universe that could give rise, perhaps, to things we see around us."
Linde seconded that in his New Scientist interview.
"Just imagine if it's true and there's even a small chance it really could work," he said. "In this perspective, each of us can become a god."
Oh, the vanity of it all!
It does create myriad fascinating possibilities. You could create your own universe and have it your way. And if things go south, just walk away and create another one more to your liking!
The principle that there can be no possible communication between these bubbles allows each to be treated as an independent universe with different physical laws. A universe then would be a region with a particular set of physical laws.
That's what I was thinking, but it may be too late for him.
universe
n.
All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
Back in the Forties, Robert Heinlein wrote a pulp sci-fi story exploring precisely this scenario. The flaw of this universe was the "Bird" and the "Sons of the Bird". Keywords: "The Bird is cruel."
Ideally, its expansion wouldn't displace space or time or matter in our own universe, but create its own.
He is one of the best popular expositors of current cosmological thought. Even better, he actually understands the cosmologists. Even better, he is one.
Sounds like Sid Meiers is working on Civilization V.
Note the source. I'm surprised the heretofore respectable Andre Linde would have anything to do with this.
More like his way of saying "I fantasized the other day about..."
Until now, "universe" has been completely synonymous with "all that exists." The same used to be true of the term "world" (and it still is, in some usages of the term "world.") The new meaning no longer encompasses "everything that exists," and so leaves us with no single word with that meaning.
Me and a few good dogs.... sounds good
Oh, you must be talking about that Bizzarro Universe where the fetuses of unborn animals are celebrated with their own television specials, while the fetuses of human beings are regularly and systematically murdered with the full blessing of the law.
Yep, I know *that* universe! :(
Greene also describes a kind of energy, called a "repulsive force," that might be capable of turning that seed into a new universe.
___________________________________________________________
Please do NOT post any Helen Thomas pictures! I had a really bad day already!!!
Hmm..I've seen people not be able to get past the idea that the big bang was expanding into something that was already there, before, and I can't figure out how to explain what it's actually saying.
You have to completely empty your mind of the idea of "space" as this permanent, empty, unchanging thing. If a new universe expands in a big bang, it's not expanding "into" anything - it doesn't swallow up any pre-existing stars or galaxies. Spacetime ITSELF is expanding.
The Democrats already have one, where up is down, lwft is right, strong is weak, right is wrong, Hillary makes a great president, Ted Kennedy is guarding the bar, Al Gore is considered an expert on something, and Howard Dean is the spokesman for something other than Dr. Loonbizkit's Strait Jackets.
Yes, and they did it through use of a black hole; there is no light there, it's hard to escape, and it sucks up every resource you can imagine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.