The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are we part of a multiverse?  (Read 5372 times)

Offline Emilio Romero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Are we part of a multiverse?
« on: 02/09/2008 17:52:15 »
Emilio Romero asked the Naked Scientists:
Hello, I am writing you from Ecuador and would like to start by congratulating you all on a spectacular and fun podcast. Great work. Thanks.

I have a question: I've heard that singularity (the moment in which all four forces in the universe were supposedly together) occurred just before the big bang and as the universe was created, the forces separated.

I've also heard that singularity can exist in the tip of the coneŁ where a black hole endsŁ. If both ideas are true, might we be just one of many universes since potentially every black hole can create a big bang?

Thank you very much

Emilio

What do you think?


 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Are we part of a multiverse?
« Reply #1 on: 02/09/2008 21:55:13 »
Hello Emillio.

There do seem to be some similarities between the Big Bang singularity and a Black Hole singularity, but they are similarities about something we cannot observe or study directly and so it's very difficult, if not impossible, to say anything about them for certain.

Specifically, the similarity between the two is that the laws of physics, as we know them, do not seem to apply in either case, and the problem is that we cannot describe and explain anything without relating it to those laws of physics.

It seems unlikely that a black hole can create a new Big Bang - we don't yet have any evidence for this happening.  There might also be a problem with a new big bang occurring in a space-time environment that already exists - the space-time environment that we exist within was created by the Big Bang and didn't exist before then.

None of this means that it's impossible - just that there seems to be no evidence that indicates that it is possible.
 

Offline Emilio Romero

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Are we part of a multiverse?
« Reply #2 on: 15/09/2008 15:24:05 »
Thank you very much for your answer.
I'm new at this and look forward to spend some time at this forum.
Thanks again

emilio
 

Offline Scorpius

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Are we part of a multiverse?
« Reply #3 on: 08/12/2008 20:49:28 »
   Black holes hold together an astronomical geometric network. This network includes the means capable for the transfer,or recycle,of energy. The mass of energies collected by black holes is then pulled through a space time vaccum. These wormholes release the collection of mass energy into the adjoining dimension. Thus sustaining an even flow of mass and energy throughout the universe.
   These dimensional vortexes are the gateway to infinite proportions,in fathomable to humans. This vast geometric network holds together every variation of questionable reality.
   Black holes continue to collect and distribute energies as they grow in size. This growth rate continues until there are only two supermasses remaining. These masses eventually collide,becoming one. With nothing to feed on,the event horizon can no longer sustain itself,and the mass collapses under the great pressure of its own extreme gravitational force. The neutrons then pull into and collect at a specific point. At that moment the gravity,force,and pressure needed to sustain this process can no longer be achieved resulting in a collapse into the vortex.
   This in turn results in a cataclysmic explosion on the other side of the vortex itself,resulting in the unimaginable thrust beginning the cycle again.This process repeats infinitely.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2008 20:52:46 by Scorpius »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Are we part of a multiverse?
« Reply #4 on: 08/12/2008 21:14:35 »
Scorpius - That is just wild speculation and has no basis in science.

One major flaw with your proposition is where you say that...

Quote
Black holes continue to collect and distribute energies as they grow in size. This growth rate continues until there are only two supermasses remaining. These masses eventually collide,becoming one. With nothing to feed on,the event horizon can no longer sustain itself,and the mass collapses under the great pressure of its own extreme gravitational force.

That is simply not true. When there is no more mass within the gravitational field of a black hole, it stops feeding. Even with the increase in its mass to start with, and consequent increase in gravitational attraction, it cannot continue feeding forever. Eventually there will be no more mass within its gravitational field.

In addition, the universe is expanding. This means that masses are moving apart over large distances. Consequently, any black holes that do form will move so far apart that they will no longer feel the gravitational attraction from any other black hole.

And what's that about the event horizon no longer being able to sustain itself? It's complete twaddle. An event horizon is not an object of any sort. It is the radius from the centre of the black hole where the escape velocity equals the speed of light. It is no more than a region of spacetime.
 

Offline Scorpius

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Are we part of a multiverse?
« Reply #5 on: 08/12/2008 21:37:31 »
 I know what the event horizon is. I was talking about the form itself not being able to sustain itself
« Last Edit: 08/12/2008 21:57:39 by Scorpius »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Are we part of a multiverse?
« Reply #6 on: 08/12/2008 22:52:48 »
I know what the event horizon is. I was talking about the form itself not being able to sustain itself

I don't understand what you mean. What form? There is no form. There is nothing there except a gravitational field and a lot of curved spacetime.
 

Offline Scorpius

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Are we part of a multiverse?
« Reply #7 on: 10/12/2008 17:47:46 »
Exactly
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Are we part of a multiverse?
« Reply #8 on: 10/12/2008 19:39:21 »
So can you explain what you mean by "not being able to sustain itself"?
 

Offline TECHFACTOR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
  • Too Boldly Go!!!
    • View Profile
Are we part of a multiverse?
« Reply #9 on: 13/12/2008 17:12:51 »
 TECHFACTOR Here !!! :I don't know if I can help you with this because my theory's have not been proven. But in my theory of A liquid universe these black holes are simply swirl holes spun off by fast moving matter from the big bang ;as they collect matter they grow ;the larger they get the more space and time they distort until the bottom falls out. I don't think these fall out into another universe; But into the empty reaches of our very large dimension. See my liquid theory in the new theory of this same science forum TECHFACTOR AWAY !!!
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Are we part of a multiverse?
« Reply #10 on: 31/12/2008 09:23:56 »
Emilio Romero asked the Naked Scientists:
Hello, I am writing you from Ecuador and would like to start by congratulating you all on a spectacular and fun podcast. Great work. Thanks.

I have a question: I've heard that singularity (the moment in which all four forces in the universe were supposedly together) occurred just before the big bang and as the universe was created, the forces separated.

I've also heard that singularity can exist in the tip of the coneŁ where a black hole endsŁ. If both ideas are true, might we be just one of many universes since potentially every black hole can create a big bang?

Thank you very much

Emilio

What do you think?

Here's a little to digest.

Subatomic matter behaves very differently to larger masses. One example of this estranged behavior is called the 'double slit experiment' introduced by physicist Thomas Young in 1805. This experiment consists of a machine that shoots a beam of photons, electrons or even atoms towards film screen - but before the particles reach the screen and leaves tiny marks, it needs to pass through either an upper slit, or a lower slit that are closely separated. Each slit can be closed, or both can be left opened by the choice of the observer.

   Now, when the beam of particles hit the screen, you would suppose the particles had to pass through either the upper slit or the lower slit, yes? However, the strange thing is, is that if you close down one of slits, more particles reach the screen than if you left both slits open! How can this be? You would imagine more particles reaching the screen if both slits were opened - but this is not the case.

   One strange answer came about. The particle wasn't a pointlike particle at all. It acted as though it were a wave! 

If one uses the wave description, the problem seemed to go away. We know how waves act in the sea, and this also means that the particle will take these attributes on board.

   A wave could reach both slits at the same time - and just like a wave coming into contact with two openings, the wave can split into two smaller waves, one, as i am sure you can guess, in each slit. If the two waves travel different paths, they can be made to interfere with themselves after passing the slits; in doing so, less waves reach the screen. If one slit is only open, the wave will travel through the slit, and, just like a wave hitting the shore, it will hit many places simultaneously on the screen - thus hitting more places with one slit open, than having both slits open.

   However, the particle wasn't only just a wave - after all, when it hit the screen, it left a tiny 'pointlike' mark. Somehow when the wave hit the screen, it hit many places on the screen as dots. Thus, a new description had to made for a particle that traveled through space as a wave, and finishes its journey as a single object - this description has been come to be called the 'wave-particle duality.' The particle therego was in fact a wave and a particle simultaneously.

   Why did the particle act as a wave?

   Well, at first, physicists thought that the wave was a product of the human mind - it wasn't real, and it was just a means for us to keep track of experiments. The wave became to be called the 'quantum wave function.' This was a wave of possibilities. The wave probability enables us to calculate the possibility for a particle and its path, location, spin, orbital reference, ect.  The wave spreads out over space, and resembles likelihoods, not actualities... or does it?

   In 1957 physicist Hugh Everett the third, came up with a rather bizarre conclusion concerning the wave function. His idea was that if the experiment says that the particle passed through both slits at the same time, then both particles, the one traveling past the upper slit, and the particle traveling through the lower slit, must both exist.

   Question is though, how and where does this extra ghostly particle exist? The answer was parallel universes. Somehow, an identical particle existed in a parallel world; the wave represented the amount of particles it was composed of, thus one particle passed the upper slit and a particle passed the lower slit, and each 'branch', or universe, it was represented as a wave, having quite a real effect in each universe.

   However, why should the particle be a wave and then suddenly become a particle again? It turns out that our universe, according to Everett, is constantly splitting and merging every time some measurement is performed or when something comes into contact with something else.

   Each time the universe split, it would represent the wave function splitting into as many possibilities as there where outcomes, and the merging would represent the universe becoming superimposed all over again. Thus, in the double slit experiment, when the particle moves through both the slits simultaneously, this represents the universe splitting, creating as many universes as the possibility allows - in this case, two universes - and the merging represents the pointlike dot when it hits the screen. However, it turns out that the experiment represents only two universes - yet, it turns out that our universe is in fact one in an infinite amount of parallel universes, all 'superpositioned' upon each other, like layers on a cake.

So with the flip of a coin, you could create a little over 10^30 universes, or more precisely, 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 universe-possibilities real! Whilst the collapse of a star into black hole (as you had speculated may not cause a big bang) - but the very collapse of a star will certainly give birth to universes in the fashion.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Are we part of a multiverse?
« Reply #10 on: 31/12/2008 09:23:56 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums