Is the universe a bubble? Let's check

Jul 17, 2014
This is a screenshot from a video of Matthew Johnson explaining the related concepts of inflation, eternal inflation, and the multiverse. Credit: Perimeter Institute

Perimeter Associate Faculty member Matthew Johnson and his colleagues 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 ; in the beginning was the vacuum. The vacuum simmered with energy (variously called dark energy, , the inflation field, or the Higgs field). Like water in a pot, this high energy began to evaporate – bubbles formed.

Each bubble contained another vacuum, whose energy was lower, but still not nothing. This energy drove the bubbles to expand. Inevitably, some bubbles bumped into each other. It's possible some produced secondary bubbles. Maybe the bubbles were rare and far apart; maybe they were packed close as foam.

But here's the thing: each of these bubbles was a universe. In this picture, our universe is one bubble in a frothy sea of bubble universes.

That's the hypothesis in a bubbly nutshell.

It's not a bad story. It is, as scientists say, physically motivated – not just made up, but rather arising from what we think we know about .

Cosmic inflation isn't universally accepted – most cyclical models of the universe reject the idea. Nevertheless, inflation is a leading theory of the universe's very early development, and there is some observational evidence to support it.

Inflation holds that in the instant after the big bang, the universe expanded rapidly – so rapidly that an area of space once a nanometer square ended up more than a quarter-billion light years across in just a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. It's an amazing idea, but it would explain some otherwise puzzling astrophysical observations.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

Inflation is thought to have been driven by an inflation field – which is vacuum energy by another name. Once you postulate that the inflation field exists, it's hard to avoid an "in the beginning was the vacuum" kind of story. This is where the theory of inflation becomes controversial – when it starts to postulate multiple universes.

Proponents of the multiverse theory argue that it's the next logical step in the inflation story. Detractors argue that it is not physics, but metaphysics – that it is not science because it cannot be tested. After all, physics lives or dies by data that can be gathered and predictions that can be checked.

That's where Perimeter Associate Faculty member Matthew Johnson comes in. Working with a small team that also includes Perimeter Faculty member Luis Lehner, Johnson is working to bring the multiverse hypothesis firmly into the realm of testable science.

"That's what this research program is all about," he says. "We're trying to find out what the testable predictions of this picture would be, and then going out and looking for them."

Specifically, Johnson has been considering the rare cases in which our bubble universe might collide with another bubble universe. He lays out the steps: "We simulate the whole universe. We start with a multiverse that has two bubbles in it, we collide the bubbles on a computer to figure out what happens, and then we stick a virtual observer in various places and ask what that observer would see from there."

Simulating the whole universe – or more than one – seems like a tall order, but apparently that's not so.

"Simulating the universe is easy," says Johnson. Simulations, he explains, are not accounting for every atom, every star, or every galaxy – in fact, they account for none of them.

"We're simulating things only on the largest scales," he says. "All I need is gravity and the stuff that makes these up. We're now at the point where if you have a favourite model of the multiverse, I can stick it on a computer and tell you what you should see."

That's a small step for a computer simulation program, but a giant leap for the field of multiverse cosmology. By producing testable predictions, the multiverse model has crossed the line between appealing story and real science.

In fact, Johnson says, the program has reached the point where it can rule out certain models of the multiverse: "We're now able to say that some models predict something that we should be able to see, and since we don't in fact see it, we can rule those models out."

For instance, collisions of one bubble universe with another would leave what Johnson calls "a disk on the sky" – a circular bruise in the cosmic microwave background. That the search for such a disk has so far come up empty makes certain collision-filled models less likely.

Meanwhile, the team is at work figuring out what other kinds of evidence a bubble collision might leave behind. It's the first time, the team writes in their paper, that anyone has produced a direct quantitative set of predictions for the observable signatures of bubble collisions. And though none of those signatures has so far been found, some of them are possible to look for.

The real significance of this work is as a proof of principle: it shows that the multiverse can be testable. In other words, if we are living in a bubble universe, we might actually be able to tell.

Explore further: Have cosmologists lost their minds in the multiverse?

More information: — Check out some of Johnson et al.'s papers about simulating bubble collisions using numerical relativity on arXiv:

- "Determining the outcome of cosmic bubble collisions in full General Relativity"
- "Simulating the universe(s): from cosmic bubble collisions to cosmological observables with numerical relativity"
- "Simulating the universe(s) II: phenomenology of cosmic bubble collisions in full General Relativity"

— Read Johnson and company's work pertaining to observational tests of eternal inflation on arXiv:

- "Towards observable signatures of other bubble universes"
- "First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation"
- "Hierarchical Bayesian Detection Algorithm for Early-Universe Relics in the Cosmic Microwave Background"

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Have cosmologists lost their minds in the multiverse?

May 13, 2014

The recent BICEP2 observations – of swirls in the polarisation of the cosmic microwave background – have been proclaimed as many things, from evidence of the Big Bang and gravitational waves to something ...

Astronomy without a telescope - bubblology

Jul 25, 2011

One model of a hypothetical multiverse has, perhaps appropriately, some similarity to a glass of beer. Imagine an eternal false vacuum – that’s a bit like a fluid, though not all that much like a f ...

First observational test of the 'multiverse'

Aug 03, 2011

The theory that our universe is contained inside a bubble, and that multiple alternative universes exist inside their own bubbles – making up the 'multiverse' – is, for the first time, being tested by physicists.

Recommended for you

How Paramecium protozoa claw their way to the top

13 hours ago

The ability to swim upwards – towards the sun and food supplies – is vital for many aquatic microorganisms. Exactly how they are able to differentiate between above and below in often murky waters is ...

User comments : 65

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
2.6 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2014
Could be a lot of "stellar islands" (bubbles) out there , maybe all very similar to our own. Just imagine all these universes ducking & dodging in & out of one another's pathways as they meander through the inter-universe space......mind boggling.
hyongx
2.6 / 5 (8) Jul 17, 2014
"Is the universe a bubble? Let's check"
Perimeter Associate Faculty member Matthew Johnson and his colleagues are working to build a giant needle to try and poke the universe to see if it pops. If it pops, their hypothesis that the universe is a bubble will be confirmed... Life as we know it may cease as a consequence of popping the universe.
Sean_W
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 17, 2014
If there are an infinite number of universes--and anything that can happen, will happen--then even the most seemingly unique and precious thing is just one of an infinite number of identical things. This would seem to bring the value of everything to... ~zero.
Sean_W
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2014
That's not an argument against the multiverse idea. Just a depressing consequence of it.
Doug_Huffman
4 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2014
Another PI faculty member reminded that other universes are not causally connected by definition and thus not falsifiable and non-science after Popper.

If it was easy then everyone might do it.
DoieaS
1.1 / 5 (12) Jul 17, 2014
. In this picture, our universe is one bubble in a frothy sea of bubble universes. That's the multiverse hypothesis in a bubbly nutshell.
Or this is a steady-state Universe in multiverse package. In AWT the Universe is simply random stuff which looks like the random landscape under the fog. It just means, it doesn't matter where you appear in it, some hyperbolic geometry always dominates it after neglecting and blurring out all its details. Another consequence of this model is, the spherical harmonics and dodecahedron geometry will always compete in the resulting geometry: what we will see will be always mixture of both.
DoieaS
1 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2014
Is the universe a bubble? Let's check
The idea, that the Universe appears like the interior of some giant void is here for quite some time here and it violates the Copernican principle. New data indicate, such a perspective is just an illusion. Sometimes my feeling is, both scientists, both the authors of articles like this one have a memory of tropical fish and they're willing to reinvent wheel again and again. Such a stance is driven with both ignorance, both overemployment of people involved.
arom
1 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2014
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….
But here's the thing: each of these bubbles was a universe. In this picture, our universe is one bubble in a frothy sea of bubble universes…..

Inflation is thought to have been driven by an inflation field – which is vacuum energy by another name. Once you postulate that the inflation field exists, it's hard to avoid an "in the beginning was the vacuum" kind of story. This is where the theory of inflation becomes controversial – when it starts to postulate multiple universes.


It seems that multiple universes postulate is go too far, our one universe is complicate enough; it is not necessary using it to solve the inflation problem. This simple and understandable idea may help to visualize….

http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
Bob Osaka
5 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2014
Alan Guth's Inflation lectures are available on Youtube MIT OCW. It's difficult to argue with a Nobel laureate. He casts a humble figure and open-mindly admits the theory poses more questions than solutions. The physicists job now is to develop models to verify or to falsify, a task which is not as simple as the article implies.
RobertKarlStonjek
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2014
It would be prudent, when contriving a crazy theory, to keep it under your hat until you actually came up with some evidence. Look what happened to Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann when their university jumped the gun and announced the discovery of cold fusion.

Pons and Fleischmann's neutron detector was designed to detect leakage from nuclear power stations and so was not very accurate. They wanted to get funding for some proper equipment when their uni, fearing that someone else was about to claim the discovery, called a press conference. Pons and Fleischmann were horrified and then went on to be universally condemned for the claim they never intended to make...

So why announce multiple universes? Has the standard of science dropped so much that we now applaud researchers for making announcements about what they think they might find?
Pexeso
1.5 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2014
Has the standard of science dropped so much that we now applaud researchers for making announcements about what they think they might find?
This is politics, my dear Watson. The string theorists failed after many years so there's a need to find another job for them.
dirk_bruere
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2014
Cyclic universe is also a multiverse, but extended in time rather than "space"
Pexeso
1 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2014
Cyclic universe is also a multiverse, but extended in time rather than "space"
Actually it's the hyperdimensional property of our universe, it appears cyclical, i.e. fractaly repetitive in scale. The fact the galaxies are formed with stars and these stars are formed with atoms, which are formed with another particles belongs into the same fractal geometry, but it's not called "cyclical" anyway just because of it...
Pexeso
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2014
The multiverse concept has actually its psychosocial roots. Under the situation, when the new findings systematically undermine the adored mainstream theories, the mainstream theorists face the lost of credit, job and social influence. So they developed a semantic trick: it's not the violation of existing theories as many times before - but the indicia for multiverse, which manifest itself by now. This trick implies, that the neighboring multiverses do behave in similar way, like this one of ours, so that the belief of laymen in mainstream theories can be restored. But it actually doesn't require it, so it's flexible enough for future, which would allow every new finding to explain in the same way. The similar situation did already happen in the past, when the Church started to explain the Big bang as a "God's intention". The history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2014
Sean_W uttered
That's not an argument against the multiverse idea. Just a depressing consequence of it.
Um no, thats ONLY your way of looking at it, rather narrowly too. Surely you'd accept there are many pleasures in the short time we exist to experience perceptions & interactions. Primary chemical aspects of our existence; Food Shelter & Sex are common to all organisms. We as humans are exceedingly fortunate to amplify each and all of our primary needs to tenuous extensions offering multiple delights.

Besides your addition to zero requires maths, the diversity of such requires skill & maybe its that effort you really find depressing. So do something about it, apply skills to work/help/inspire others & communicate the subtle offerings of the extensions of our primary needs.

We don't actually know what summation to zero actually means in universal context - you might view that only god exists & is in a state of self-observation.

Depressing Sean_W if you ignore that potential !
Pexeso
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2014
The multiverse concept is actually very common consequence of hyperdimensional spreading of information in every multiparticle system. The water surface illustrates it again with interpretation of famous Einstein's paradox, in which he opposed the expanding universe model.

This paradox can be formulated as follows:
Space expands globally although it nowhere expands.
At the water surface it's quite common, that one observer will see his space-time expanding at place, where another observer resides - whereas this distant observer will perceive exactly the same for the first observer. What we can see is, each of observer lives in his own multiverse, which isn't equivalent to perspective of another observer and both perspectives penetrate mutually like the ghosts. This is the result of hyperdimensional character of scatterin
Pexeso
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2014
Another already well known example of multiverse is the complementarity of black holes, which Susskind illustrated with example of elephant falling into black hole from perspective of two observers, which are residing at different places. Whereas it's clear for everyone, both observers still reside INSIDE of our universe, from perspective of these observers the presence of multiverse already manifests itself clearly. After all, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is just a holographically dual version of multiverse concept too. So we can have many formulations of multiverse in their less or more strong form. For example Brian Greene distinguished at least nine versions of multiverse in his book, thus making this concept even less testable.
Pexeso
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2014
IMO the multiverse concept is a postdictive intepretation of hyperdimensional character of our reality and we can have as many multiverse definitions, as many examples of it. It doesn't provide any testable predictions, we can only use it as a politically correct way of falsification of existing theories. From this perspective it's just a swan song of former era of mainstream physics and its actual role is sociopolitical, not physical one, as I explained above. Even the concept of hyperdimensions describes the universe better/deeper, than the multiverse concept - so we can live without multiverse comfortably.
Egleton
1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2014
We are happy to entertain these ideas and yet are unable to look at overwhelming empirical evidence.
The work of Pons and Fleishmann continues and is producing the goods. It is obsequious servility to the alter of orthodoxy that prevents progress.
This attitude has many historical precedents.

Word on the street is that many big names of physics are seen sneaking around this site, in fear of destroying their reputations but unable to resist the temptation to be naughty.
http://lenr-canr.org/
Pexeso
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2014
The work of Pons and Fleishmann continues and is producing the goods
It's somewhat striking, that only two original articles were added into http://lenr-canr.org library during this year. What changed with cold fusion research during last year? We can only remember the situation from beginning of Cold War era, when Flyorov, while serving in the air force, became alarmed when there was no published response to his discovery of spontaneous fission and when he noticed that the Western physics journals no longer published articles dealing with nuclear fission. He concluded that the Americans must be making a bomb and alerted Stalin of the situation.
Egleton
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2014
Good heaven, Just because Copernicus stated his principle does not elevate the idea to a dictat of God.
Examine the assumptions.
1 That the Universe is real and the Mind is not.
2 That the present is caused by the past and that it is a consequence of the Big Bang.
There are so many cludges and hail mary ideas that it is time to embrace the crisis.
http://www.my-big-toe.com/
Egleton
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2014
What has changed is Big Money.
Things are escaping the Lab and into the real world of industrial nastyness.
Go read the book "The Imposible Invention" by Matts Lewens.
Tachyon8491
1 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2014
I do not think we can just simply dismiss a phase of metaphysics modelling in our conjectures - to me there is a logical and warranted progression between modelling phases of metaphysical epistemology; theoretical physics; dialectical materialism; and empirical investigation with testable experiment. There is in fact even one more ultimate primary phase - this is psychospiritual and intrinsically cultural and personal.
Dr_toad
Jul 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2014
If there are an infinite number of universes--and anything that can happen, will happen--then even the most seemingly unique and precious thing is just one of an infinite number of identical things. This would seem to bring the value of everything to... ~zero.

Not so because not everything is equally likely. While there may be truly unique circumstances somewhere the likelyhood of finding yourself in such a circumstance are infinitesimally small.

It's like tossing coins. Toss ten coins: Getting 5 heads and 5 tails (if you do not care about the order) is a lot more likely than getting all heads.

other universes are not causally connected by definition and thus not falsifiable and non-science after Popper.

I guess they are using a different definition of universe here which are simply characterized by having separate beginnings (big bangs).

So why announce multiple universes?

They didn't announce multiverses. The merely found a way to test for them IF they exist
swordsman
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2014
A vacuum filled with energy? Now is that possible? What about dark matter? Science is going in all directions, totally incohesive. Quantum! Quantum! Quantum.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2014
A vacuum filled with energy? Now is that possible?

Yes. That is a direct consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The concept isn't new. First papers on this were published in the 1940's or 50's I think. And it has been shown to be real via the Casimir effect.

Science is going in all directions, totally incohesive.

Just because YOU don't understand the connections doesn't mean that science is incohesive.
pugphan
1 / 5 (10) Jul 18, 2014
Amazing what the mind can conjure! Anything anybody can thunk up is possible but we'll never really know for sure till we cross over to the other side. However all of that aside, ETs, ALFs are already heeeeere....see www.weliveamonyou.com
Eikka
2.7 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2014
So where does the infinite, infinitely acceleratingly increasing energy that makes all the infinite bubbles come from?
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2014
So where does the infinite, infinitely acceleratingly increasing energy that makes all the infinite bubbles come from?


......other universes gravitationally interacting with one another may be the answer.

In our universe alone some astronomers have estimated the number of galaxies to be more than 200 billion, others think it is in excess of a trillion. All these galaxies have gravitational bonds to other galaxies, so why can't there be that many gravity bonded universes doing the same thing?
mahi
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2014
As long as the scientific community ignores logic and religiously swears by the weird preachings of relativity and quantum theory, the world has no choice but to painfully bear with such weird theories creep in every so often masquerading as science.
www.debunkingrelativity.com
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2014
mahi incapacity to understand mathematics has him leap into rubbish
.. the world has no choice but to painfully bear with such weird theories creep in every so often masquerading as science.
http://www.debunk...vity.com
What masquerades as Science is the link you offer suggesting imaginary situations involving a 'Heaven' with a bad mix of conditions/language, it is completely religious as it is completely untestable in that framework, ie Not Science, just idle bad thinking.

Look at the details of actual definitive Scientific Experiments and tell me general & special relativity has no basis in maths because, this shows it is definitively real, tested, no arbitrary Heaven etc.

http://en.wikiped...periment

http://en.wikiped...lativity

Can you not see mahi, the web site you offer has NO experiments, NO data, NO mathematics interpretation of ANY experiments, ie Not Science, it even has religious overtones 4 christs sake !
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2014
So where does the infinite, infinitely acceleratingly increasing energy that makes all the infinite bubbles come from?

Careful, Eikka. with questions like that you're only a step or two away from quasi-metaphysical meanderings...:-)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2014
So where does the infinite, infinitely acceleratingly increasing energy that makes all the infinite bubbles come from?

Who says there are an infinite number of bubbles and that there is some form of infinitely accelerating energy? I get that nowhere from the article. They are talking 'multi'...not infinite.
And if there were infinitely acceleratingly increasing energy then our universe would have expanded to an infinte radius instantly - which isn't the case.

Everything here is pretty well in the realm of the finite.
Mayday
2 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2014
I think it is a mistake to imagine our Universe as a giant ball of "space" bobbing around in "space." That just makes no sense to me. Our concept of, and all the physical properties of, our "space" are very likely unique to our Universe. The very ideas of space, distance, and time may, in fact, exist no place else outside of our Universe. Try this thought experiment: imagine that the "expansion" of our "space" is actually inward, as opposed to outward. You'll get the idea. Our idea of space, and our Universe, does not require a volume of space to exist "in." If it did, then that space would be, by definition, part of our Universe.
Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mayday
1 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2014
If the Big Bang is correct, and I don't oppose it, I just find it a bit simplistic; then every location in our Universe is at the very center of our Universe. Space itself expanded. Frankly, I love this idea. And I think it is a mistake to imagine the CMB as an image of some sort of static backdrop, akin to the sky in "The Truman Show." I believe that it is patently impossible to sail your ship up to the CMB and poke the prow through. It just isn't out there. Trying to imagine these big bubbles seems closed-minded, and seems to miss the whole point of the Big Bang, expansion, laws of physics, and a Universe. I see the CMB as a deep 3D image that combines energies spreading away from us over a tremendous cosmic distance. Of course you will see patterns, not unlike seeing unicorns in the clouds.
TechnoCreed
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2014
I think it is a mistake to imagine the CMB as an image of some sort of static backdrop, akin to the sky in "The Truman Show." I believe that it is patently impossible to sail your ship up to the CMB and poke the prow through.
The CMB is not a backdrop; there is no object at the edge of the universe sending photons! It is everywhere, permeating the universe, like the settling dust after an explosion. A settling cloud of... photons, that the wavelength as been stretch for 13.8 billion years because of the expending universe. The wavelength distribution of the CMB is analog to the curve of a blackbody that has cooled down to 2.73 Kelvin; the afterglow of the Big-Bang.
Mayday
1 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2014
Thank you, Techno. Very succinctly and well said. The point is the same: IMO, the CMB does not define an outer edge of our balloon that other balloons can bump into and bruise. If one could travel a few billion light years in any direction, one could detect a spherical CMB "centered" there. And one could point out other unicorns in its patterns as well!
pandora4real
1 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2014
Since it's all about a convenient metaphor for perplexing observations, and it gets around the problem of a singularity at the beginning, why not assume that the best testable evidence will come from that other singularity problem, black holes? Is dark matter and energy constant? What if black holes could be demonstrated to be its source? Basically suggesting that they look for where this universe contacts others rather than the other way around. The other way around the point could be anywhere. Looking from our side there are obvious places to start, like "singularities".
DoieaS
1 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2014
there is no object at the edge of the universe sending photons
The term "edge" implies some physical boundary anyway. If the Universe would be formed with white hole (as the FRLW metric implies), then the event horizon of such a white hole would correspond the particle horizon of the Universe.
Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DoieaS
1 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2014
It's about just another Universe model presented here at PhysOrg before year. It's evident, you're not touched with these articles at all..
This doesn't mean I'm supporting it myself - in my opinion this model fits the geometry of the wave scattering at the water surface in the same way, like the Big Bang model. Our universe neither exploded with no apparent center, neither forms the black hole with some apparent center - it's something between it.
DoieaS
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2014
The evolution of cosmological models follows exactly the way, which would follow the hypothetical waterstriders living at the water surface and observing it with its own ripples. With improving of their technical background their visibility scope would expand too. At the beginning these waterstrides would observe only the red shift, i.e. the expansion of wavelength of surface ripples with distance due to scattering. Later these bugs would observe the inhomogeneities of the water surface and their logical conclusion would be: if our universe expands and we are observing the violations of this expansion at distance - it just means, another universes are expanding there against us! Wow, we are living inside of multiverse! Of course, these silly bugs will realize soon, these "multiverses" are all well within their visibility scope and they just represent a subtle density variations, i.e. they're all connected with our universe.
DoieaS
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2014
The main reason, why the thinking of mainstream physicists follows the thinking of silly waterstriders is the inertia in thinking - too many theorists are too well payed for the development of existing models and because the speed in technical evolution accelerates, these theorists don't die fast enough for not to become a brake in human understanding during their life.
Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DoieaS
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2014
On the contrary, I'm promoting here the simplest and most transparent way of interpretation of observable reality which is following strictly the real life, i.e. fully physically realistic analogies. All these hypothetical stuffs like the formation of Universe from nothing in a single explosion - which wasn't actually an explosion and it stopped immediately for being replaced with inflation from no apparent reason again - which wasn't actually an inflation also and it stopped immediately for being replaced with accelerated expansion of Universe from no apparent reason - well, THIS is what the frigging insanity should be called! Just a chain of nonsensical unphysical events fitted to observations like the freaky epicycles of - not so recent era - of mainstream physics and astronomy.
Dr_toad
Jul 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DoieaS
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2014
These stuffs are as physically nonsensical as the concept of God floating with angels at heavens and it even serves the very same purpose - for to provide the regular income and informational monopoly for its theologists and advocates. It's just modern kind of mindless religion, which replaced another more naive one.
DoieaS
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2014
Why the space-time should expand with blazing speed and stop immediately? Well, at the water surface this situation seemingly happens all the time - the ripples are tiny at distance from observer and they expand fast in its proximity.

Do we have some explanation for inflation, better the more? The things always happen for a reason, just the contemporary physicists refute to think about it for not to threat their pet regressions. From the same reason the medieval theologists prohibited people to ask deeper questions about God existence.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2014
@Mayday (a note)
Your comment was read and appreciated. Although I can understand what is proposed here and can make a mind model of 'bubble universes' somewhat intertwined, I am highly skeptical of it myself; my curiosity is not enticed, so I will not read and try to understand any part of the papers that are linked to this article. This being said, I think it is quite ok to be skeptical; what is questionable is to dismiss science without good reasons. Any scientific research built with solid knowledge is a piece of the puzzle. Often the mathematics is good only the interpretation is inadequate. What is important is that the background work done this way helps others to put the pieces together.

On the subject of the Big-Bang theory being quote simplistic, I object to those defending realism. The Big-Bang theory is a model that makes the universe understandable and that is what counts. The only solid connections we have with the reality are mathematics, do not count on the human mind to be evolved enough to reason with it.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2014
@Mayday (a note)
Your comment was read and appreciated. Although I can understand what is proposed here and can make a mind model of 'bubble universes' somewhat intertwined, I am highly skeptical of it myself; my curiosity is not enticed, so I will not read and try to understand any part of the papers that are linked to this article. This being said, I think it is quite ok to be skeptical; what is questionable is to dismiss science without good reasons. Any scientific research built with solid knowledge is a piece of the puzzle. Often the mathematics is good only the interpretation is inadequate. What is important is that the background work done this way helps others to put the pieces together.

On the subject of the Big-Bang theory being quote simplistic, I object to those defending realism. The Big-Bang theory is a model that makes the universe understandable and that is what counts. The only solid connections we have with the reality are mathematics, do not count on the human mind to be evolved enough to reason with it.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2014
@Mayday (a note)
Your comment was read and appreciated. Although I can understand what is proposed here and can make a mind model of 'bubble universes' somewhat intertwined, I am highly skeptical of it myself; my curiosity is not enticed, so I will not read and try to understand any part of the papers that are linked to this article. This being said, I think it is quite ok to be skeptical; what is questionable is to dismiss science without good reasons. Any scientific research built with solid knowledge is a piece of the puzzle. Often the mathematics is good only the interpretation is inadequate. What is important is that the background work done this way helps others to put the pieces together.

On the subject of the Big-Bang theory being quote simplistic, I object to those defending realism. The Big-Bang theory is a model that makes the universe understandable and that is what counts. The only solid connections we have with the reality are mathematics, do not count on the human mind to be evolved enough to reason with it.
TechnoCreed
4 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2014
Damn !
Rustybolts
2 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2014
"It would be prudent, when contriving a crazy theory, to keep it under your hat until you actually came up with some evidence"

Lol.. wouldn't be a theory now would it.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2014
"It would be prudent, when contriving a crazy theory, to keep it under your hat until you actually came up with some evidence"
Lol.. wouldn't be a theory now would it.
@Rustybolts
You are correct. It would be a philosophy or a hypothesis.
Until there is some empirical data supporting it, it is ONLY a hypothesis or philosophy with regard to the scientific terminology. Even hypothesis tend to be postulated with regard to some logical path or point derived from some equation which may suggest something

a philosophy would be something that is completely unsubstantiated by ANY reason or sound logic unless you are suggesting it comes from the sunjective logic of said poster/thinker - A perfect example is Mundy's claims about expansion, which have NO basis in MATH, Logic or another scientific perspective- making it a philosophy, NOT a theory or even a hypothesis.

other claims, like EU etc... are considered pseudoscience at best as they are completely DEBUNKED with physics/science
Mayday
5 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2014
For what it's worth, IMO, general understanding is hindered by animations and illustrations that depict the Big Bang as a Hollywood explosion and the Universe as a giant sphere floating in some medium of similar physics. I also find the choice of words of "bang" and "inflation" to be somewhat unfortunate. And applying our human-scale measures of Time to initial events as our Universe came into existence is likewise problematic, in my layman's view.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2014
Perimeter Associate Faculty member Matthew Johnson and his colleagues are working to bring the multiverse hypothesis, which to some sounds like a fanciful tale


Edit: "which IS a fanciful tale". Just like the creation myth of the Big Bang.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2014
This "bubble" concept follows the same concept that Einstein states in his thesis on General Relativity, that the universe is a "quasi-spherical" stellar island, otherwise distribution of stellar energy could not occur and the stellar fires would have been snuffed out within a couple thousand years (or less) from the moment of ignition at the Big Bang.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2014
What intrigues me most is the size of our "bubble" compared to all the other "bubbles" in "inter-bubble space". How's that for coining a new term Toad?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2014
Even hypothesis tend to be postulated with regard to some logical path or point derived from some equation which may suggest something

Well, 'hypo' is the greek prefix for 'less than' (as in hypotonic, hypothermic, hypochonder, etc. ).
A hypothesis is therefore "less than a thesis" (a thesis being something that is backed up by observation and/or logical argument from known premises)
A hypothesis is more on the line of "this seems sensible...maybe we should check it out and se if we can turn it into a thesis". In essence it's a first best guess.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2014
Well, 'hypo' is the greek prefix for 'less than' (as in hypotonic, hypothermic, hypochonder, etc. ).
A hypothesis is therefore "less than a thesis" (a thesis being something that is backed up by observation and/or logical argument from known premises)
A hypothesis is more on the line of "this seems sensible...maybe we should check it out and se if we can turn it into a thesis". In essence it's a first best guess.
@AA_P
Thank you for that clarification.
I don't think I made that clear enough, but with your addition, it seems to add the requisite point that I was trying (but failed) to make...

Thanks again
11791
1 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2014
they are beating a dead horse
its so worn out its a cliche now
swordsman
1 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2014
Energy in a vacuum? Electromagnetic fields? This theory is hanging on a thread.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2014
Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2014
...........yeah Toad, I understand, it's always those not nearly as capable as Einstein who imagine they know more. Have you lately tried to follow any differential equations contained in his thesis on General Relativity? I can follow every one of them.
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2014
Who says there are an infinite number of bubbles and that there is some form of infinitely accelerating energy? I get that nowhere from the article.


From the video, where they state that they're assuming a static energy field that remains static regardless of expansion of space, which means they simply assume there's an accelerating influx of energy into the multiverse from apparently nowhere.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2014
...........yeah Toad, I understand, it's always those not nearly as capable as Einstein who imagine they know more. Have you lately tried to follow any differential equations contained in his thesis on General Relativity? I can follow every one of them.
@Benni
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Considering your inability to comprehend basic computer technology and terminology, I would suggest you keep your braggadocio to yourself... you claim a LOT, but when discussing the simplest of things like PM's, messages, administrator rights, the CONTACT button at the bottom of the page, and regular e-mail, you could not differentiate between them...

so here you are, a NOOclear engineer who is a computer illiterate. Perhaps when you decide to denigrate a person for what YOU perceive is a shortcoming although you have NO evidence to support it, you will remember that you are not able to comprehend computers well and consider NOT posting?

Dr_toad
Jul 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mahi
1 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2014
mahi incapacity to understand mathematics has him leap into rubbish
.. the world has no choice but to painfully bear with such weird theories creep in every so often masquerading as science.

http://www.debunk...vity.com

What masquerades as Science is the link you offer suggesting imaginary situations involving a 'Heaven' with a bad mix of conditions/language.... it even has religious overtones 4 christs sake !


It should have been "mahi's incapacity to religiously swear by mathematics". I am is also restrained by the need to follow logic unlike your science. The 'imaginary situation' presented there is much better than your famous cat!
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2014
mahi is so badly confused with this utterance
It should have been "mahi's incapacity to religiously swear by mathematics"... The 'imaginary situation' presented there is much better than your famous cat!
Are you un-well or don't you know the difference between relativity & Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory ?

Focus please on relatively (no cats) & we are not talking interpretations, we are talking actual quantitative results - ie. Actual numerical results from an experiment & repeated many times over several decades where the results very closely match predictions.

Please mahi focus on numeracy of
http://en.wikiped...periment

If you perceive there's a problem with the experiment methodology then state it please ?

If you perceive there's a problem with the mathematics application then state it please ?

The way your post is written suggests you either have no higher maths training or major philosophical disagreement with maths fundamentals ?