Universe not a closed system.

[the tree]

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?

[insane_alien]

because that blackhole would be part of the universe by definition.

[ydoaPs]

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?

[ecoli]

Not that I don't trust you, Tree. But do you have a source for this... I am intruiged.

[5614]

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?

[Daecon]

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.

[5614]

Where does QM say that the universe must eventually "repair itself" and more importantly what do you mean by "repair itself"?

[Daecon]

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.

[padren]

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.

[the tree]

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.

[padren]

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?

[Norman Albers]

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.

[the tree]

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.

[Norman Albers]

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.

[the tree]

No, interaction between two Universes is quite another matter. I was just proposing interaction between this universe and it's containg multiverse.

[Norman Albers]

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!)

[the tree]

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.