Expansion

[RICHARDBATTY]

So the expansion is speeding up. Could the creation of new universes be the driving force. If all universes are entangled but not touching the creation of new spacetime between universes would require more space.

[[Tycho?]]

I dont really know what you are saying, but I think its wrong.

[DreamLord]

So the expansion is speeding up. Could the creation of new universes be the driving force. If all universes are entangled but not touching the creation of new spacetime between universes would require more space.

 

True, the universe's expansion rate is increasing. But we do not know how it interacts with other universes. Heck, we don't even know if there are other universes for sure. Just all theories.

[RICHARDBATTY]

'']I dont really know what you are saying, but I think its wrong.

It is difficult to describe universes layered up on more than one axis/dimension. I was talking from the point of view of brane theory. If universes are layered on each other in multiple dimensions and a new universe is created between two universes then all must expand spacetime to accomodate the new universe.

[Thales]

If universes are layered on each other in multiple dimensions and a new universe is created between two universes then all must expand spacetime to accomodate the new universe.

 

No, they wouldn't, because space-time is independent for each universe, as in each universe has its own space-time and one cannot 'insert a new universe into existing space-time, because it wouldn't be a new universe it would be a subspace of an existing one...

 

I know we've had a similar discussion in the wormhole thread (that went a bit off topic in the end) but if anything then the creation of new universes would detract from space-times ability to expand(IMO) as this expansion requires energy as does the creation of a new universe.

[RICHARDBATTY]

No' date=' they wouldn't, because space-time is independent for each universe, as in each universe has its own space-time and one cannot 'insert a new universe into existing space-time, because it wouldn't be a new universe it would be a subspace of an existing one...

 

I know we've had a similar discussion in the wormhole thread (that went a bit off topic in the end) but if anything then the creation of new universes would detract from space-times ability to expand(IMO) as this expansion requires energy as does the creation of a new universe.[/quote']Sorry I didn't explain that very well. I was meaning that universe created between universes would require space and not a universe created within a universe. If the distance between universes was to remain the same all universes would have to expand. I cannot use an example as there are no examples of something being layered on more than 4 dimensions. The closest I could get is a natural sponge when dry takes up little space. When hydrated it takes up more space but the liquid is not part of the sponge.

[Thales]

I was meaning that universe created between universes would require space and not a universe created within a universe. If the distance between universes was to remain the same all universes would have to expand.

 

I don't understand the logic behind this arguement. If the universes were to remain at a constant distance(which there would be no reason for, but I have adopted that assumption to point out the following) and they expand, the space between them would shrink, not grow. As I assume the space 'between' universes is where you plan on inserting these new universes, you would need more space not less...

[RICHARDBATTY]

I don't understand the logic behind this arguement. If the universes were to remain at a constant distance(which there would be no reason for, but I have adopted that assumption to point out the following) and they expand, the space between them would shrink, not grow. As I assume the space 'between' universes is where you plan on inserting these new universes, you would need more space not less...

Thats it. The only way to get the extra space is for all universes to expand and provide an increased surface area to accomodate the new space. The universes only expand in their own space time but not into the gap but by doing so the gap area increases. God aren't multi dimesions a pain to explain.

[ydoaPs]

in brane theory, the new space is made when the two "universes" meet. aka cyclic model. )

[Thales]

I understand hyperdimmesional geometry quite well, I think that your reasoning is a bit too convoluted though.

 

Are you saying that the space for the new universes is created on the 'surface' of the existing universes boundary or that the space is createed in the 'gap' between the universes?

 

Oh and a minor correction yourdadonapogos, in brane theory 'new' space is created by a collison between two branes collide, not when two universes collide.

[ydoaPs]

i thought u were using the term "universe" instead of brane, because i have yet to hear a definition of universe that leads me to believe there could possibly be more than one. sorry

[RICHARDBATTY]

in brane theory, the new space is made when the two "universes" meet. aka cyclic model. )

Yes there is normaly a seperation but when they meet a transfer from each universe is made the link collapses and the energy/mass in transit is trapped between and creates its own space time which expands. Although relative to the other universes the amount of energy/mass is small this is now a closed system with its own relativity.

[Thales]

This is a completely different point from what you where making before Mr Batty, first the universes were created in the gap, now they are created by the collision between boundaries.

 

As for these new universes robbing the existing ones of matter/energy I think this is unlikely, see the wormhole thread. It seems in the last post you are suggesting a wormhole is temporarily created and then collapses trapping energy in it. While this process is plausible I don't see how it ties into your inital statement. Nor do I think it is entirely likely as if there is a method to create this bridge what would be the process that destroy's it? Does it happen instantly or does it stay open for a while? What processes dictate the time the hole is open, etc.

 

Also this would mean the new universes are either much much much less massive than their parent universes or, the parent universes are robbed of a large proportion of their mass/energy. Our universe is pretty massive so I assume we are not born from a larger one(quite an assumption I agree but I do not prescribe to the universe in a universe in a universe with infinite regression theory (mainly because I don't believe infinity has any place in physics)), and we don't appear to be losing any mass to baby universes (nor have we any cosmological evidence that we ever have) so again, I remain starkly unconvinced.

[RICHARDBATTY]

This is a completely different point from what you where making before Mr Batty' date=' first the universes were created in the gap, now they are created by the collision between boundaries.

 

As for these new universes robbing the existing ones of matter/energy I think this is unlikely, see the wormhole thread. It seems in the last post you are suggesting a wormhole is temporarily created and then collapses trapping energy in it. While this process is plausible I don't see how it ties into your inital statement. Nor do I think it is entirely likely as if there is a method to create this bridge what would be the process that destroy's it? Does it happen instantly or does it stay open for a while? What processes dictate the time the hole is open, etc.

 

Also this would mean the new universes are either much much much less massive than their parent universes or, the parent universes are robbed of a large proportion of their mass/energy. Our universe is pretty massive so I assume we are not born from a larger one(quite an assumption I agree but I do not prescribe to the universe in a universe in a universe with infinite regression theory (mainly because I don't believe infinity has any place in physics)), and we don't appear to be losing any mass to baby universes (nor have we any cosmological evidence that we ever have) so again, I remain starkly unconvinced.[/quote']These quotes are getting a bit too big I think. The collision starts the proccess the new universe creates its self in the gap.

[Thales]

The collision starts the proccess the new universe creates its self in the gap.

 

Ok well firstly you can edit the quotes by deleteing the irrelevant text from between the tags ([]....[/]), it will help in pointing out what it is you object to.

 

If things collide, then they are touching, there is no gap. And last time I checked universes can't just create themselves.

 

Oh and Sayo, the existance of other universes does seem to smack of science fiction, but, just as we did in the wormhole thread, it still provides good intellectual fodder none the less...

[Sayonara]

Oh and Sayo, the existance of other universes does seem to smack of science fiction, but, just as we did in the wormhole thread, it still provides good intellectual fodder none the less...

Too late - I already deleted the post because I saw that I had read Yourdad's out of context.

 

Personally I don't see any reason why if one universe can form, no others should.

[Thales]

Neither do I.

 

At least this means we agree on something...

 

[RICHARDBATTY]

As the new universe expands it puts pressure on the gap and therefore the surrounding universes and the universes are stretched in all directions at once.

[RICHARDBATTY]

"If things collide, then they are touching, there is no gap. And last time I checked universes can't just create themselves."

 

This idea is born of the brane idea which I would be the first to admit its not the best place to start. But the basic idea is the matter and gravity cause a bulge in the membrane. In another membrane the same happens. If these two bulges are deep enough to bridge the gap and meet some thing from both branes combines which begins the new brane. Yes to us in our universe observing this it seems to be a insignificant amount of material, but the new universe is only relative to its self.

[Thales]

Pressure usually makes things contract not expand.

[RICHARDBATTY]

Pressure usually makes things contract not expand.

I would say baloons to you but that would be rude . I know what you mean though. It is as I said we are not talking 3d. You have to try and think that all the universes are layered up on each other without actualy touching. Then think of this as occuring on all dimensions at once you will then see that each universe is infitely entangled (not quantum) and yes it is very difficult to perceive. I can only do it for a few seconds at at time .

[Thales]

No offense, but you have convinced me of nothing. This theory contains very little physics and much conjecture. Perhaps fine-tune your idea a bit futher before continuing...

[RICHARDBATTY]

No offense, but you have convinced me of nothing. This theory contains very little physics and much conjecture. Perhaps fine-tune your idea a bit futher before continuing...

You are correct and as the saying goes the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I haven't the math to describe the pudding so I cannot expect any one to swallow it. It would take some one with the brains to do this and I only have half a brain. but thanks for an interesting disscution.

[Severian]

So the expansion is speeding up.

 

I think the first premise is wrong.

 

What has actually been seen is that very distant galaxies are accelerating away from us (and other galaxies). But the light from these galaxies have taken a very long time to get to us, so they are from close to the time of first galaxy formation. In other words, galaxies were at some point long in the past accelerating apart, but are no longer doing so now (because we see no acceleration away from us in near galaxies).

 

Putting a cosmological constant into the equations is enough to explain this (just as Einstein originally had), so I am often confused as to why this garners so much speculation.

[RICHARDBATTY]

I think the first premise is wrong.

 

What has actually been seen is that very distant galaxies are accelerating away from us (and other galaxies). But the light from these galaxies have taken a very long time to get to us' date=' so they are from close to the time of first galaxy formation. In other words, galaxies were at some point long in the past accelerating apart, but are no longer doing so now (because we see no acceleration away from us in near galaxies).

 

Putting a cosmological constant into the equations is enough to explain this (just as Einstein originally had), so I am often confused as to why this garners so much speculation.[/quote']Thanks, I think you mean that what we see is an ancient movie of the original expansion. I thought all this had been taken into account. I had often wondered if the rotation of planets galaxies etc had been taken into account when calculating red shift as all this movement could affect time etc.