The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The other Universe pulling on ours?  (Read 4259 times)

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
The other Universe pulling on ours?
« on: 05/07/2011 02:43:20 »
Is anyone here familiar with the relatively new theory involving the unexplained cold spot in the Cosmic Microwave Background and the Dark Flow of Galaxies towards that spot?

I just watched a documentary introducing this concept and would like to know more about it and what other people think of it in this Forum.....

Here is a link to the documentary: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/through-the-wormhole-is-there-an-edge-to-the-universe/

The documentary does seem to move at a painfully slow pace and if you skip to about ten minutes before the end you should be able to get most of the information.


 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
The other Universe pulling on ours?
« Reply #1 on: 05/07/2011 08:13:35 »
I don't think galaxies are moving towards the cold spot. The CMB cold spot is located in the direction of the constellation Eridanus. Dark flow, on the other hand, is moving in the direction of Hydra and Centaurus.

I don't see any particular reason that the flow can't just be caused by gravity from a giant supercluster of galaxies beyond the edge of the visible Universe. Seems to be a more conservative guess than invoking parallel universes or new physics.
 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
The other Universe pulling on ours?
« Reply #2 on: 05/07/2011 14:14:30 »
Thanks for the correction in the direction.  From what I can gather data is still in the process of being collected and so it will be in the next few years we will hear about this again I am sure.
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
The other Universe pulling on ours?
« Reply #3 on: 05/07/2011 23:45:34 »
I don't think galaxies are moving towards the cold spot. The CMB cold spot is located in the direction of the constellation Eridanus. Dark flow, on the other hand, is moving in the direction of Hydra and Centaurus.

I don't see any particular reason that the flow can't just be caused by gravity from a giant supercluster of galaxies beyond the edge of the visible Universe. Seems to be a more conservative guess than invoking parallel universes or new physics.

I agree.
 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
The other Universe pulling on ours?
« Reply #4 on: 06/07/2011 02:00:42 »
NASA's Goddard Space Center confirmed this could well be the effects of another universe or a region of space-time fundamentally different from the observable universe. NASA also states that the evidence collated so far suggests that some structure is pulling on matter in our vicinity.

Now whether that structure is a galaxy supercluster or another universe we have to keep an open mind as the data is not in. The European Space Agency's Planck mission is apparantly mapping the CMB as I write this and will also provide more information including more recent data from the WMAP mission.

What I do find very interesting about this is that it seems to fly in the face of standard cosmological models due to the fact that normally the models predict that there would be a decrease in this type of motion and in this case the motion is constant out to a minimum distance of a billion light years away.  What also makes this so interesting is that is has taken NASA by surprise as they did not expect to find anything like this within our universe.  This statement suggests that something like a supercluster of galaxies is something that the scientists have looked into and does not fit the current models of our universe?

This kind of thing really fascinates me as do all new scientific discoveries and I value the opinion, knowledge and experience of those here who understand these concepts far more then myself.  ;D
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
The other Universe pulling on ours?
« Reply #5 on: 06/07/2011 03:58:22 »
It is generally agreed that the influence of gravity propergates at the speed of light, if the source of attraction was beyond the limit of the observable universe as regards electromagnetic radiation would the same thing not also apply to gravity ?.
 

Offline Mr. Data

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
The other Universe pulling on ours?
« Reply #6 on: 06/07/2011 04:10:25 »
It is generally agreed that the influence of gravity propergates at the speed of light, if the source of attraction was beyond the limit of the observable universe as regards electromagnetic radiation would the same thing not also apply to gravity ?.

Yes. All signals which have vast distances require the transmission of the fundamental particles of their fields respectively need to move at lightspeed.
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
The other Universe pulling on ours?
« Reply #7 on: 06/07/2011 04:20:55 »
Which means that we should not feel such a gravitational attraction from where we are, since the object in question is outside of our Hubble horizon. All objects have their own "Hubble horizon" which they are the center of though, so presumably if you were in one of the galaxies of the supercluster that is moving, you'd be able to see/detect/feel the force and the object(s) that are causing it because the object would be within your own Hubble horizon.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The other Universe pulling on ours?
« Reply #8 on: 06/07/2011 04:56:52 »
There are some things though. Very hypothetical like? If I define light as propagating at 'c' then it will 'weaken' in a redshift, is there a limit for that redshift? Can it become so 'diluted/stretched' that we won't see it? And if I define gravity as the metric of space, then a expansion must come with it (gravity)? Understand me right here, I'm not saying that gravity distortions/waves don't propagate at 'c'. I'm just stating that if gravity is the metric of a space, then any 'new' space only can come to be if it has 'gravity' intrinsic to it, otherwise it can't be 'there' to us, or radiation.

Don't know what to make of it though.
=

Heh, I do know what to make of it. Those two would create a state where 'gravity' would reach us faster than light, even though both moves at 'c'. That as those new stretches would come with its own gravity, whereas 'light' still would have to 'propagate' over those new stretches.  This is assuming that 'inertia' is gravity's symmetry and that gravity in some remarkable way is 'topologically instant'. And that the new stretches might be seen as gravitationally 'entangled' with the 'old gravity slope', containing that 'slope' already that we're walking gravitation-wise, which it should, shouldn't it?
==

A even weirder idea :) If I would be to assume that gravity still creates 'new space' expanding from all objects, that is assuming that we can have a 'space' without gravity. Could there be a scenario in where you have those gravitational wave propagations meeting, creating eddies? How would those express itself if there were a lot more 'gravity' on one side meeting a weaker 'gravity' from the other. We can either assume that this 'non gravitational' space, representing our 'new space' then would be some sort of one dimensional representation of a distance, gravity creating its 3D, or that it still would be 3D, or anything in between. Not that I like it overmuch :), that one would make me have to change a lot of ideas I like, as it would introduce gravity as something 'radiating' from matter, accelerations and 'energy'. Or maybe not btw? I can still think of it the way I do, I think?
==

Better go to sleep huh?
Definitely go to sleep here :)
« Last Edit: 06/07/2011 05:26:10 by yor_on »
 

Offline Airthumbs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 958
  • Personal Text
    • View Profile
The other Universe pulling on ours?
« Reply #9 on: 07/07/2011 02:00:26 »
Hey yor_on, I see what you are saying but it seems that for this to hold, new space-time coming into existence through the expansion of the universe would meed a memory of some sort to propagate the gravity curve you mention.  This would also support the theory that information can travel faster then c.

This would also mean if we have sensitive enough equipment we could measure the entire universe through gravitational modelling as we would not be relying on c.  It sounds a little bit like a gravitational wormhole through space-time.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The other Universe pulling on ours?
« Reply #10 on: 07/07/2011 02:47:10 »
I don't know, you could think of 'space' as a topology, if you do that 'slope' is exactly the same as the slope you see outside your house (if you have a slope there of course:). That slope doesn't need any 'information' to keep its shape. You can also think of it in form of inflation that is said to have expanded FTL due to a 'scalar field' of some defined magnitude called e-folds.

Myself I think of it as a definition of a topology that come to be for some, to me unknown, reason. We could assume that there is no way to define a (measurable) length to a one dimensional particle, then we go up a step and decide that with a two dimensional particle we can assign a measurable length & width, but there will still be something missing to fit our universe, as for example its 'depth'. Imagine that one-dimensional entity, and then find a way to make it 3D? Or we could assume that it has to do with 'clocks', was there a clock at that inflatory stage? But then the expansion becomes doubtful as we now have a arrow. I like topology myself, and the question of what a 'distance' really is? It changes with motion, energy and mass. So you may not be able to change the clock into a 'ftl' but you sure as he* can change the room.
==

And that 'clock' I define as 'c', that's also why you can't change it. But 'distance' is a very different thing. Have a great distance, split it in the middle and fill it in, now it has grown, repeat the procedure. As soon as the new 'fill up' has reached the length that you can place a filler more there let him too fill in the next split, as soon as his patch is big enough for two, hire another to place there waiting for the next (new) split from that new patch, ad infinitum. It grows very big, very fast, like that chess board and the guy that wanted only to double two rice corns, for each square on it. Now you got 'FTL' but it has nothing to do with 'speed', as in defining one thing to move 'FTL' over a surface. The problem with my description is that it should accelerate 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 1024 2048 ~ into infinity. So I don't know how it does it, restricting itself that is :)
=

Maybe that is what restricts the expansion :)That we have a 'clock' now?
« Last Edit: 07/07/2011 03:18:23 by yor_on »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
The other Universe pulling on ours?
« Reply #11 on: 07/07/2011 08:05:21 »
One important fact that you must bear in mind is that all current models of the universe tend to assume that viewed on the largest scale the universe is homogenous and isotropic that is much the same everywhere you look.  This may well be a good approximation for what may be the tiny bit of the universe that we can see but as with the end of the "continuous creation" model my our discovery that the universe changes with time.  it seems highly probable that our universe does have some sort of overall structure which may be glimpsed by our increasingly accurate measurements.  It is logical therefore not to rush away and look immediately for other universes to account for  variations on the largest scale but consider what implications this may have for a structured universe.

My guess for a good structure for a universe would be a thickish toroidal surface that was gravitationally bound and rotating coherently in both axes at as near as dammit the velocity of light but we can only see a tiny piece inside the thickness of this surface.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The other Universe pulling on ours?
« Reply #12 on: 07/07/2011 13:20:40 »
Yeah, one of the really irritating things with a inflation is how this universe got its energy. Either the conservation laws is correct, and symmetries. Then you can't expect that 'energy' get stronger as the roomtime widens, at least not as I understand it. but I've seen some suggesting just that.

If we go on that assumption it should mean that as a room widens and 'energy' gets 'stronger' that rooms 'walls' loses energy. That should mean that a infinite room will have the most energy stored in it. This will also mean that as it is sort of a 'free' lunch to create a infinite room, we just need to understand dimensions and then make a small 'room' without 'energy', and watch it 'inflate' into incredible 'energies' that we then can tap ala Van Vogt (A SF favorite of mine:)


I don't trust that theory at all. A inflation need to have whatever it present for us today. Not that I can say what 'energy' is, but it has to do with the ability of transformations and getting 'work' done.

The idea as such though, is that we have a 'finite' amount of energy ('walls energy' goes to -> interior 'energy') getting redistributed in the inflation/expansion, so maybe? But I still find it wanting. It doesn't define it to me, just make an assumption that 'energy' can exist on its own, as it must, to be transmuted (jump) from those 'meta physical walls' into a 'space'.

How?
And what the he* would then 'energy' be?

==

And another thing, I saw the weak inhomogeneities/variables in the CBR explained as photons lose 'energy' as they 'climbed' areas of a higher gravity :)

What will the next thing be, that some of them died? At the same time that the energy 'grows' as the room gets 'bigger'?

Give me a break.
And in a book presenting physics too.

(Could be the translation into Swedish that fail, maybe?)
Hopefully.
==

A often used argument for 'energy' in the universe is that it is a symmetry that when all is counted together becomes zero. That one makes some weird sense if you think of it as transformations from 'workable energy' to 'unworkable energy' as when the petrol burns up in your car. But it also state that the universe is a 'whole thing' if so, where nothing comes in or out, if you think about its premises. And that is exactly what I mean. The 'energy' we see/expect today must have been there from the beginning. But then we have the expansion :) Where does it come from? What allows it to bring with it the 'energy' to keep that symmetry in equilibrium. Because that is what we see as far as I know,  a equilibrium, that keeps itself the same. And if it does, it surely can bring with it 'gravity' too.

Otherwise the universe is a open thing, where nothing can be sure, no matter what 'laws' we see here.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2011 15:35:27 by yor_on »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

The other Universe pulling on ours?
« Reply #12 on: 07/07/2011 13:20:40 »

 

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