the tree Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Many many galaxies away, far beyond the view of our modern telescopes, there is a small hole (for lack of a better word) and this continually spews out energy. Not much energy, in fact less than a joule a year. This energy comes from the larger multiverse that our universe habitates, in sort of the same way that a punctured ball takes in water when placed in a bucket. Is there anyway that we know this is not there? If not, then why are we so sure that the universe is a closed system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 because that blackhole would be part of the universe by definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Many many galaxies away' date=' far beyond the view of our modern telescopes, there is a small hole (for lack of a better word) and this continually spews out energy. Not much energy, in fact less than a joule a year. This energy comes from the larger multiverse that our universe habitates, in sort of the same way that a punctured ball takes in water when placed in a bucket. Is there anyway that we know this is not there? If not, then why are we so sure that the universe is a closed system?[/quote'] are you talking about hawking radiation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Not that I don't trust you, Tree. But do you have a source for this... I am intruiged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Sounds weird/interesting. Source? If it's beyond the view of modern telescopes how have we ever observed it? e.g. how do we know it exists? What stops it just being a black hole and the energy release would be Hawking Radiation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Maybe it's a rupture in our three-brane. One would assume the Universe would eventually repair itself due to quantumn mechanics, similar in the way a blob of goo will eventually flow and reform to close the hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Where does QM say that the universe must eventually "repair itself" and more importantly what do you mean by "repair itself"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted March 17, 2006 Share Posted March 17, 2006 Well okay, it doesn't. But random jitters in the fabric of space/time could lead to the hole getting smaller, for instance if the hole is reduced by 2 Planck lengths in one direction, and another few Planck lengths in the opposite direction, they may meet in the middle. Then again, I suppose there's nothing to say the Universe would continue to rip open by the same method, or remain the same size because the averages of the closing and opening would even out. It was just an idea I threw out from the top of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Its an interesting idea, but isn't x,y,z,t part of our universe? (or additional dimensions if there are curled up ones etc) I am just not sure how something could effect our universe, or even how you could tie it to causality or "when" it effects our universe etc, if it wasn't already part of the same dimensional fabric. If we use a different definition of what the universe is, say, go with a theory where a universe exists on a thin 4Dish membrane (where x,z,y is the skin) and two collide, they must share some sort of dimensional space as well as time in order for them to collide, or even for something-tons to radiate from one to touch the other...maybe we wouldn't have a closed system. But really, all we are doing is labeling a portion of the universe as "our universe" and calling that an open system, as the true scope of dimensions and causality itself (which is what I could call the universe) would actually still likely be a closed system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted March 23, 2006 Author Share Posted March 23, 2006 Eeep, I forgot about this thread. Not that I don't trust you, Tree. But do you have a source for this... I am intruiged.It was just a hypothetical idea that I came up with when someone said "we know that the Universe is a closed system" and I thought "do we?".I am just not sure how something could effect our universe, or even how you could tie it to causality or "when" it effects our universe etc, if it wasn't already part of the same dimensional fabric.If you get a basket ball with puncture in it, then stick it in a bucket of water, then water will seep in. This puncture could be very small, so small that the basket ball people (who live on the inner surface of the basket ball, but nearly on the other side) wouldn't know that it was there. Apparently I can't edit my orginal post, I just wanted to clarify that it was a hypothetical for the sake of the two questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 If you get a basket ball with puncture in it' date=' then stick it in a bucket of water, then water will seep in. This puncture could be very small, so small that the basket ball people (who live on the inner surface of the basket ball, but nearly on the other side) wouldn't know that it was there.[/quote'] Then the basketball and the bucket of water are two elements of a more complex universe, aren't they? If time and space are a dimensions that came into existance with the creation of the universe, then what method of transferrence (ie, at what time, and through what space) would something enter our universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Albers Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 I have long championed the Albers yeasted swiss-cheese multiverse theory (I am the Metaphor Mangler). Philosophically and physically it is unthinkable (or at least I don't like it) that there be just one. Could there be a giant manifold with regions of coming together (Big Crunches) and regions of going apart (Bangs)? An evolution like yeasted dough. Galactic structure is like this, no? Bubble walls, in the large. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hearing a bell ringing in my hear, I picked up Brian Greene's "Elegant Universe" and located chapter 11: Tearing the Fabric of Space. Let us read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 Then the basketball and the bucket of water are two elements of a more complex universe, aren't they?I guess, so. Have you read "The Universe in a Nutshell" where Steven Hawkings talks about it being perfectly possible for our universe to be part of a bigger multiverse?If time and space are a dimensions that came into existance with the creation of the universe, then what method of transferrence (ie, at what time, and through what space) would something enter our universe?The hole in the basket ball would be be a small part of a two dimenisonal surface, I supose the hole in our universe would be a small part of a four dimensional surface (?), so it'd be limited in four dimensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Albers Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 The last hit I got on this was bubble universes sort of gallumping away from each other through inflation. Can we save my model? You have "little hole" but we are, I think, asking about possible connectedness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 No, interaction between two Universes is quite another matter. I was just proposing interaction between this universe and it's containg multiverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Albers Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 OK, I see you are in the multidimensional beyond four. Not to confuse things I will stop using my term in this sense. (This is not my attitude about fractional photons!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 back to the basket ball, if you have two basket balls in buckets of water then they are both prone to interact with the water, and it's possible that they'd react with each other. But these would be different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now