Colliding universes?

[Captrek]

Will Science Burst the Multiverse's Bubble?

If the multiverse is real, it stands to reason that, in this rampaging mess of neighboring universal “bubbles,” there should be frequent collisions, much like the jostling balls in a ball pit. Johnson’s team has specifically set out to look for observational evidence of neighboring universes colliding with our own, thereby supplying some hint of observational evidence that we may have universal neighbors.

This confuses me. My understanding of the multiverse is that the "bubble universes" are embedded in an inflation field growing so fast that distances double every 10^-43 seconds. With the space between the universes growing so rapidly, how can the distance between universes ever shrink to create a collision?

 

[publiusr]

I wonder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot
The universe is a hypersphere, not a regular sphere--as depicted in the piece above--we really don't know what an impingement would look like.

Also:
"Astronomers Alexander Kashlinsky, F. Atrio-Barandela, D. Kocevski and H. Ebeling found evidence of a "surprisingly coherent" 600–1000 km/s flow of clusters toward a 20-degree patch of sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

 

[scotthm]

we really don't know what an impingement would look like.

If adjacent universes had wildly different universal constants and physics I'd expect any impingement to look quite spectacular.

---------------

 

[PurpleBuddha]

we really don't know what an impingement would look like.

If adjacent universes had wildly different universal constants and physics I'd expect any impingement to look quite spectacular.

---------------

Then again, if the laws are completely different the two universe may just pass right through one another. It may depend on what type of universe we bump into, assuming that it is possible for two universes to bump into one another.

 

[Into Darkness]

If the multiverse is real, it stands to reason that, in this rampaging mess of neighboring universal “bubbles,” there should be frequent collisions, much like the jostling balls in a ball pit. Johnson’s team has specifically set out to look for observational evidence of neighboring universes colliding with our own, thereby supplying some hint of observational evidence that we may have universal neighbors.

Just looks to me like another bunch of scientists getting paid heap loads of money to sit around barely doing anything significant and coming out in a few years time with nothing to show for any of it.

 

[BillJ]

If the multiverse is real, it stands to reason that, in this rampaging mess of neighboring universal “bubbles,” there should be frequent collisions, much like the jostling balls in a ball pit. Johnson’s team has specifically set out to look for observational evidence of neighboring universes colliding with our own, thereby supplying some hint of observational evidence that we may have universal neighbors.

Just looks to me like another bunch of scientists getting paid heap loads of money to sit around barely doing anything significant and coming out in a few years time with nothing to show for any of it.

Sounds like someone is jealous...

 

[publiusr]

we really don't know what an impingement would look like.

If adjacent universes had wildly different universal constants and physics I'd expect any impingement to look quite spectacular.

---------------

Then again, if the laws are completely different the two universe may just pass right through one another.

Or it might be that we are the interface between universes.

Gravity just doesn't want to play well with others. We all want to unify these forces--but I was thinking that the reason they don't jive so well is that we are feeling the effects of two universes, and we are just the compromise between competing forces.

A lot of libertarians think that the laws of the days of pantaloons and powdered wigs is enough for today--a position I disagree with.

In the same way, physicists want "elegance." Phooey!

I don't think there is any elegance. I think an equation to describe the situation will be a complicated nightmare no human will ever fathom.

To start, take this idea of certain types of supernovae being "standard candles." I don't buy that for a moment.

If humans can make nukes of different yields, so too can the universe. Maybe if a neutron star hit a hot Jupiter orbiting the other star in a binary system--the blast would be a bit different than if an accretion disk added up slowly over time.

That would throw off the notion of the universe accelerating faster over time.

 

[scotthm]

Then again, if the laws are completely different the two universe may just pass right through one another. It may depend on what type of universe we bump into, assuming that it is possible for two universes to bump into one another.

Who knows, maybe Dark Matter is made of other universes that coexist with us and only interact with us through gravity.

That would throw off the notion of the universe accelerating faster over time.

Why should we throw it off? Maybe as our universe's density decreases the pull of adjacent universes is causing the acceleration.

Who knows what's really going on out there? The one thing we shouldn't have is a closed mind.

---------------

 

[Captrek]

Then again, if the laws are completely different the two universe may just pass right through one another. It may depend on what type of universe we bump into, assuming that it is possible for two universes to bump into one another.

Who knows, maybe Dark Matter is made of other universes that coexist with us and only interact with us through gravity.

That's actually a mainstream idea.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/060726a.html

The Question

(Submitted July 26, 2006)

Since string theory implies up to 11 dimensions, could dark matter be gravitons leaking from other dimensions into ours?

The Answer

Actually, that's exactly one possibility that's being explored by brane-world theorists. Of course, the jury is still out on brane-world theories....

From the Cornell Chronicle:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March06/Tye.brane.ws.html

"In brane-world theory, the ends of strings are anchored in our brane, so the particles we see can only move within the brane. But the particles that carry the gravitational force, known as gravitons, are closed strings -- little Cheerios -- and can "leak" out of the brane. This explains why gravity is much weaker than the electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces. It also offers a possible explanation for the "dark matter" that astronomers need to explain why the mass of the universe doesn't agree with the observed objects. Dark matter could be in an adjacent brane, with its gravitons leaking into ours."

 

[PurpleBuddha]

To start, take this idea of certain types of supernovae being "standard candles." I don't buy that for a moment.

If humans can make nukes of different yields, so too can the universe.

The answer to this is partially in your own statement, when you say "certain types." Yes, the universe makes many different supernova with different yields. But the standard candle comes from a very specific type of supernova, type Ia.

If you want to have a better informed opinion rather than shooting completely from the hip, start with the wiki for type Ia supernovas. It is just a beginning point, but does contain some basic info you may find helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova

Once you have a little knowledge I would guess your opinion will change. If not, please come back here and post your evidence as to why the science behind this is wrong. If it is good evidence make sure to work with someone to get it published as that would be a huge scientific contribution to the world.

 

[Captrek]

It's a frustrating thing about popular science documentaries. The show is just an extremely high-level and vague description of the science, but some viewers think it's so much more. They think it's a substitute for an actual education. They can watch a 60-minute documentary and come away thinking, "Now I have the same information the cosmologists are working from, so I can draw my own conclusions instead of accepting theirs."

 

[publiusr]

I was familiar with the Champagne Supernova before any of the recent documentaries.

As per the wiki on the Chandrasekhar limit...."they point out that this observation poses a challenge to the use of type Ia supernovae as standard candles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit

Pulsars were first called LGMs (Little Green Men) because it fooled folks into thinking it might be artificial--for a little, that is.

The universe is pretty good at throwing monkey wrenches into theories--that was my point.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

The universe is pretty good at throwing monkey wrenches into theories--that was my point.

Sometimes, yes. Usually that results in even better and more amazing theories, though.

 

[publiusr]

That's true. I suppose it just sits better that the universe isn't picking up speed, and that supernovae are more varied, than the idea of a standard candle--and that meaning the whole friggen universe is doing like the moon did in Space 1999's BREAKAWAY.

Still--if it is real--its real.

If there are no standard candles, then maybe the universe will slow--then have a big crunch, rebound into a big bang--and keep going--instead of a howling lovecraftian darkness where things just get colder and colder.

 

[rhubarbodendron]

If the multiverse is real, it stands to reason that, in this rampaging mess of neighboring universal “bubbles,” there should be frequent collisions, much like the jostling balls in a ball pit.

Why would they have to collide like balls? Are there any reasons why they shouldn't simply merge into each other like some galaxies do?

A collision would mean universes have some sort of hard shell (either literally or energetically). But as they expand and contract it seems to me that they must have rather fringed edges. Kindof like raising yeast dough.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

I was familiar with the Champagne Supernova before any of the recent documentaries.

As per the wiki on the Chandrasekhar limit...."they point out that this observation poses a challenge to the use of type Ia supernovae as standard candles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit

Pulsars were first called LGMs (Little Green Men) because it fooled folks into thinking it might be artificial--for a little, that is.

The universe is pretty good at throwing monkey wrenches into theories--that was my point.

No doubt about the monkey wrenches it throws our way. But regarding the "champagne supernova" it never fooled researches into thinking it was a regular Ia. They knew it was different from the beginning.

Edit to add: Spitzer also confirmed the measurements using a different ruler:

The Spitzer measurement of the Hubble Constant was made by observed pulsing stars called cepheids at various distances from Earth. These stars' distances can be calculated by timing their pulsations, which are related to their inherent brightness.

The Hubble study looked at a special class of supernovas, which are also useful distance indicators, to make its calculation of the universe's expansion rate.

Both measurements have about the same estimated error margin of 3 percent. The Spitzer team calculated that the universe is expanding at about 74.3 kilometers (46.2 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years). The Hubble team's measurement last year came up with 73.8 kilometers (45.9 miles) per second per megaparsec. The two values agree with each other within their error bars...

http://www.space.com/18028-universe-expansion-rate-measurement-correction.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzer20121003.html

 

[publiusr]

I wonder what other surprises the universe has in store for us...