A pondering on unified field theory

[Ve9aPrim3]

Hi there to whomever may be reading this. I watch a lot of sci-show and a few Caltech lectures on YouTube and I am very fascinated with the universe and how it works as a whole. I am not in university nor do I have anything beyond a high school level of formal education so please forgive my lack of working knowledge on the mathematical aspect of physics and quantum theory. 

That being said, I have been meditating as of late and my brain started to wander over to the big picture of our universe and beyond. I found myself imagining what that would look like, and before long I was imagining all sorts of ways that could look. 

I once watched a lecture on black hole physics and it was briefly mentioned that beyond the universe is a sort of inside out black hole with its own event horizon and whatnot. 

That got me thinking to what our universe would look like from outside of that perspective and I was imagining adjacent universes of varying shapes and sizes and all of a sudden I was looking at a multiverse. 

Take time dilation into account and look at the multiverse in this way. With seemingly infinite universes coming into existence and an equal amount popping (aka heat death), wouldn't that look like a churning foamy mess? That sounds like quantum foam to me and fits quite nicely into chaos theory as well and the concept of symmetry of scale.

I have also heard mention that the physical conditions to allow intelligent life are huge (understatement). Now,  imagine our universe inside the multiverse surrounded by all the other universes, and your guess is as good as mine as to how many of them support life, let alone and that is intelligent. Not all infinites are created equal after all. 

Maybe unified field theory is thinking on the ultra macro scale, asking what happens in between universes. 

I bet it's quantum. 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Ve9aPrim3 said:

I once watched a lecture on black hole physics and it was briefly mentioned that beyond the universe is a sort of inside out black hole with its own event horizon and whatnot.

Note that this description only applies to the "observable universe"; i.e. a sphere of the universe, centred on us which is the part of the universe that we can see. Beyond that is the rest of the universe which is, as far as we know, pretty much the same as the bit we can see.

 

[Ve9aPrim3]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Note that this description only applies to the "observable universe"; i.e. a sphere of the universe, centred on us which is the part of the universe that we can see. Beyond that is the rest of the universe which is, as far as we know, pretty much the same as the bit we can see.

 

I never mentioned observable universe and it's completely moot to the thought experiment.

I was implying from the focal point of the big bang the furthest reaches of the universe, or the shock wave edge, if you will, and pondered what happens outside that sphere. 

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, Ve9aPrim3 said:

I never mentioned observable universe and it's completely moot to the thought experiment.

I was implying from the focal point of the big bang the furthest reaches of the universe, or the shock wave edge, if you will, and pondered what happens outside that sphere. 

There is no "focal point" of the BB: The BB was the evolution of space and time [spacetime] as we know them, and happened everywhere at the same time, because everywhere was packed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus.

[Ve9aPrim3]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

There is no "focal point" of the BB: The BB was the evolution of space and time [spacetime] as we know them, and happened everywhere at the same time, because everywhere was packed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus.

A Hydrogen atom if I remember correctly. Just brings me right back around to symmetry of scale. What do you think the LHC does? 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Ve9aPrim3
Rephrase

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Ve9aPrim3 said:

A Hydrogen atom if I remember correctly. Just brings me right back around to symmetry of scale. What do you think the LHC does? 

The point that I was making is that there is no center to the BB or the universe, other then that center, centered on the observer, where ever that observer may be.

The LHC like other particle accelerators, breaks down particles into their fundamental state, and approaches scenarios that existed just after the BB.

[Ve9aPrim3]

Ok. So what I'm getting is that the common perception of the BB as a singular ultra powerful explosion is wrong and is actually more akin to a sea of densely packed Hydrogen than basically reached critical mass and expanded. Correct?  Hopefully I am also correct in understanding that the heat death of the universe is all of that Hydrogen evenly spaced out over all of spacetime. How big is spacetime? 

Jumping of your point, and the one I made earlier about a foam like multiverse and imagining it as a frothy sea of ever churning bubbles for scale, with the insides being universe and the surface tension between them as the outer edges. I can imagine a bubble forming in that churn. And all of that activity looks like all of the BBs and all of the BCs (big crunch) happening simultaneously. 

It's the only way I can resolve the universe being infinite but not at the same time. And what happened before time and what happens after. How can the fabric of spacetime be infinite yet have a beginning and an end? 

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Ve9aPrim3 said:

Ok. So what I'm getting is that the common perception of the BB as a singular ultra powerful explosion is wrong and is actually more akin to a sea of densely packed Hydrogen than basically reached critical mass and expanded. Correct?

Closer.

In the Big Bang model, the universe has always been completely full of matter. 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was very small and so all that matter was hot and dense (at this stage, there were no hydrogen atoms, just a quark-gluon plasma). As the universe expanded, it also cooled (like when you use an aerosol spray: it gets cold as the pressure drops) and this allowed hydrogen atoms to form. And then the clouds of mass collapsed to form stars and galaxies and ... here we are!

16 minutes ago, Ve9aPrim3 said:

It's the only way I can resolve the universe being infinite but not at the same time. And what happened before time and what happens after. How can the fabric of spacetime be infinite yet have a beginning and an end?

Well, we don't know that it is infinite. And we don't know if it had a beginning and so ...

[Ve9aPrim3]

Ironically enough, I made this post with the assumption that I end up ridiculed and I am quite happy to be wrong about that. 

You in depth explanation of the BB makes so much more sense to me than what the common short hand used in day to day language. The BB is the name given to the stage at which proto matter became matter. Gotcha. It went from a simple sub atom existence into the age of atoms. What's the next age? Who knows. 

Anyways I'm going to jump off of that point right into a little biology. It is my understanding that when you look at the ME events in the fossil record, you notice that simpler life forms have an easier time adapting, and thus adapt to changing conditions much faster than more complex organisms, and that's without mentioning extremophiles.

The last remnants of life on earth will be the same ones that saw the beginning. 

So the big crunch would be all matter breaking down into proto matter. Adjacent to many many many other crunches in the multiverse soup, condenses, and...

BOOM! New universe! 

A finite universe to me would be like living in a video game. A simulation with programmed limits and limits to the program. I'm too much of an atheist, I have a hard time accepting the universe as anything other than infinite.

With this model in mind there's no reason that there isn't multiverses within multiverses. That's quantum foam as far as I understand the theory. The symmetry of scale. And if you picture a Venn diagram of the sciences that describes our universe, the white space is quantum inside and outside. And then you can make all kinds of Venn diagrams in the white spaces to describe other universes'  sciences, and no 2 have to be alike. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Ve9aPrim3
Afterthought

[Philip K. Dick]

Hello Ve9aPrim3,

Please continue your studies: Physics needs people who are curious and questioning about the field. 

I myself do not know what the whole picture of the universe looks like, but I would have to postulate that it is not an "elliptical" dôme-like structure as depicted by NASA images(see Google). 

Mainly because our viewpoint based on redshift (see Wikipedia) from where we are in the Universe, Earth being a relatively new planet in a relatively new solar system, is distorted by our position. 

Example: Far away from beginning of Universe= Redshift distorted because speed of expansion.

Hope this helps with your viewpoint? 

Don't hesitate to question things! 

Kind Regards, 

Philip 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Philip K. Dick said:

Hello Ve9aPrim3,

Please continue your studies: Physics needs people who are curious and questioning about the field. 

Agreed. Let me add that the first step necessary for any potential non mainstream interpretation of the universe/space/time, is to actually know fully the current accepted model that is generally now accepted, that describes how the universe/spacetime came to be. Near all fail that first step. Once that is achieved, the next step is to make sure any new interpretation or non mainstream idea, describes more observations then  the incumbent model, or falsifies some aspect of the incumbent model.

Quote

I myself do not know what the whole picture of the universe looks like, but I would have to postulate that it is not an "elliptical" dôme-like structure as depicted by NASA images(see Google). 

This "elliptical dome like structure" you are attempting to dismiss is really just good old plain common sense, and more simply and correctly known as the observable universe, which of course is centered on any observer anywhere in the universe. What we do mainly observe over such large scales , is the assumed homegeneous and isotropic factor of the universe. 

Quote

 

Mainly because our viewpoint based on redshift (see Wikipedia) from where we are in the Universe, Earth being a relatively new planet in a relatively new solar system, is distorted by our position. 

Example: Far away from beginning of Universe= Redshift distorted because speed of expansion.

 

The relationship between redshift and distant galactic distances is pretty solid. But anyway this isn't the forum to be discussing any unsupported hyptheticals that amaateurs may dream up.

Quote

 

Hope this helps with your viewpoint? 

Don't hesitate to question things! 

Kind Regards, 

Philip 

 

Of course! But unless you are totally familiar with why the BB is as overwhelmingly supported as it is, don't delude yourself into believing you have the insights to a better model.

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach/education/senior/cosmicengine/hubble.html

Edited February 19, 2018 by beecee

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Philip K. Dick said:

Hello "beecee" or for the intimates a self righteous, pompous, idiotic, bald, limped dicked (not to mention shaved)... 

Science is based on theories and PhDs like me who actually do work. 

Thank you and goodnight, Sir! 

!

Moderator Note

This is not a good start. Or have you been here before, under a different name?

 

[EdEarl]

A survival skill that should be taught early in life is accepting constructive criticism. That means teaching an infant to know the difference between trash talk and good advice,. When someone responds like Phillip did to beecee's post, they feel unreasonably threatened, which was not beecee's intent. People like Phillip, who do not understand the difference, may forever be confused, because they do not know who to trust.