Try to Wrap Your Head Around This New Big Bang Theory Idea

giles

New member
Feb 1, 2009
222
0
0
So... assuming that's true, how would we test that?
You know, why are cosmologists so obsessed with Black Holes anyway? Because the Schwarzschild solution was their first toy? Something about GR always rubs me the wrong way. Even compared to the mathematical nightmare that is QFT, at least that one produces finely testable predictions with its strange methods. I feel like any test we've done to confirm the accuracy of Einstein's equations is not precise enough to take them as gospel and go on mathematical journeys [like, you know, postulate that a vast majority of the *entire* energy is the universe is composed of particles are barely (if at all) interacting in unknown ways with the known particles (i.e. "dark")].
Sigh, maybe I'm just being childish towards a theory I didn't enjoy the course on..

BigTuk said:
And Time is not really a dimension... it's basically a way of ordering events by our brain.
So is space. Time is firmly distinguished and non-interchangable with spacial dimensions, but it is still a dimension in any meaningful way of the term.
The math adding up is also less of an affirmation since the maths is most likely making certain assumptions as true and depending on the assumptions you take as true well you can mathematically prove anything.
This is a meaningless statement. You could literally say the same thing about anything in physics.
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
BigTuk said:
See the problem is we think of black holes as breaking physics but what they do is break out understanding of physics and our understanding is admittedly very limited.
Our understanding of black holes is incomplete, but that is not the same as "very limited". Black holes are very well understood.

Doesn't help that we are incapable of directly observing a black hole (though technically the proper term would be 'black-sphere'
No, black hole is a perfectly correct term, one which quite accurately describes the gravitational effects of the singularity.

Pragmatic theory would simply state that once a black hole absorbs enough matter and there by energy some chain reaction takes place...that causes the energy and thermal expansion pressures inside a black sphere to suddenly over power the gravitational pull. In short the expansive force grows vastly stronger than the contractive force and material is explosively ejected which reduces the gravitational force which basically begins a chain reaction that is the sudden rapid onset of expansion.

The cycle of course repeats itself as matter and energy begin to once again centralize and form black spheres again and so it goes.
Well, in that case, "pragmatic theory" is completely wrong.
Black holes exist because of the exact opposite effect of the one you describe. The more mass a black hole takes in the more the gravitation force overcomes the repulsive forces. That's why black holes exist in the first place. They occur when a mass becomes so large that it collapses in on itself.

And Time is not really a dimension... it's basically a way of ordering events by our brain.
Wrong, sorry.

The math adding up is also less of an affirmation since the maths is most likely making certain assumptions as true and depending on the assumptions you take as true well you can mathematically prove anything.
Maths doesn't "likely" make assumptions. It always makes assumptions. That's not a failing of it. The trick is just to make accurate assumptions which allows you to get accurate results.
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
giles said:
I feel like any test we've done to confirm the accuracy of Einstein's equations is not precise enough to take them as gospel and go on mathematical journeys
Every single GPS satellite is built to take account of General Relativity. If it was wrong then every single GPS system on the planet would be non-functional.
 

kinderhaulf

New member
Dec 27, 2010
1
0
0
Where did the 4th dimension come from? That's not a hard question. It's pretty obvious. A 5 dimensional black hole. Duh. Buck. F*#&*!$. Passed.
 

giles

New member
Feb 1, 2009
222
0
0
Maze1125 said:
giles said:
I feel like any test we've done to confirm the accuracy of Einstein's equations is not precise enough to take them as gospel and go on mathematical journeys
Every single GPS satellite is built to take account of General Relativity. If it was wrong then every single GPS system on the planet would be non-functional.
Er... no shit?
 

secretkeeper12

New member
Jun 14, 2012
197
0
0
Maze1125 said:
BigTuk said:
And Time is not really a dimension... it's basically a way of ordering events by our brain.
Wrong, sorry.
Er....you sure about that? It's not a very controversial proposal-time exists as a "force" as much as it can account for predictable occurances in observations made on a material level (what you can sense naturally). However, on a micro level, findings indicate these changes result from molecular activity, (whether in the form of living cells respirating, compound settling, liquid evaporation, etc.). Quantum mechanics (observations on the nano-level!) pretty much solidifies time as not intrinsic to the universe, but a part of perceiving.
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
secretkeeper12 said:
Maze1125 said:
BigTuk said:
And Time is not really a dimension... it's basically a way of ordering events by our brain.
Wrong, sorry.
Er....you sure about that?
Yes. Completely.
There is no debate about this. All physics uses time as a dimension. That doesn't stop being true in quantum physics.
Further, you seem to think this is somehow an important distinction; it's not. The term "dimension" simply refers to the fact that time needs a separate variable to describe it in scientific formula and that it cannot be contained completely with-in other variables.
The fact that time is a dimension would still be true even without the discoveries of special relativity that show that the temporal dimension is very closely related to the spatial dimensions.
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
Vigormortis said:
Um...wait a second.

If I accept this hypothesis as plausible I'm left with a number of questions:

1: Where did the massive amount of matter and energy that exist in our universe come from? Dimensional wrapping doesn't really explain this, as far as I know, and I'm not buying the idea that a four dimensional star going nova would emit enough matter and energy to fill our universe.

2: If we're a three dimensional event horizon of a four dimensional black hole why do we not experience the influence of the black hole? Shouldn't any matter the black hole tossed into this three dimensional space still feel the effects of the black hole's gravity, or at least contain some remnant of that influence? Unless they're implying that the fundamental forces,or perhaps forces like dark energy are signs of this influence.

3: Hypothetically, if we're the event horizon of a four dimensional black hole, shouldn't we be seeing or at least experiencing some effects from the matter falling into that black hole? Granted, our "creator" black hole may not be feeding, but even the influx of light from external star light should have some effect, no?

I don't know. This sounds like a very intriguing hypothesis, and in some ways it could explain a number of mysteries we've yet to solve about the universe, but it seems to present more problems than it seeks to solve.

I'll definitely have to read into this further before I jump to any conclusions.
1. Our universe came from the same place that is always did, a singularity. The big bang remains the moment when that singularity went from the infantile to the finite of our universe.

2 and 3. Four dimensional matter does not enter our universe, the event horizon for four dimensional matter marks the point when everything goes infinite and falls into the four dimensional singularity. Its frame of reference is different to ours and wouldn't be affected by our universes time. If you are outside of time you cannot interact because interaction takes time.

Basically a 4 dimensional singularity has created a separate 3 dimensional finite space in its event horizon. When 4 dimensional matter enters the event horizon time stops so it can't interact with 3 dimensional space.


giles said:
This is a meaningless statement. You could literally say the same thing about anything in physics.
Err no its not Physics is about making a model and then testing that model with observations. You cannot test by observation this model, so it is just mathematical conjecture.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
Ratty said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
While it's definitely interesting, I agree with the "passing the buck" comment.

And I really wonder what a fourth "spatial" dimension would look like.
We can't really know of course but Carl Sagan elaborated on ways we might come to some slight understanding of it in the original "Cosmos" series. In the interests of education here it is.
Man. There are no words to express how much I love Carl Sagan. Imagine if all teachers were as knowledgeable and proficient at explaining as him, and as engaging.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Vivi22 said:
I certainly can't claim to have the answers to these questions, but I'm not sure our experiences with a 3D universe are particularly comparable to what would happen in a 4D universe. It's something we truly would have no intuitive understanding of, and may not even be subject to the same sort of physical laws our universe is (hell, it almost certainly wouldn't be).
Well, this is presuming our universe really is just three spatial dimensions. But regardless, even if the rules for a four dimensional universe were different than our own, that we are linked to that space would imply that forces there would have some influence here; even if their outcomes were dramatically different.

I haven't yet had a chance to look deeper into their hypothesis, so perhaps they cover it.

albino boo said:
1. Our universe came from the same place that is always did, a singularity. The big bang remains the moment when that singularity went from the infantile to the finite of our universe.
This assumes our universe is finite. An assumption no more or less valid than assuming it's infinite. We just don't know. (yet)

But regardless, I repeat the question. Where did the vast amount of matter and energy within our universe come from? Based on the hypothesis, our universe was created by a fourth dimensional star going nova and collapsing into a black hole. So either that was one hell a massive star, the nova somehow "created" an incredible amount of three dimensional matter, or the nova converted fourth dimensional matter into three dimensional matter. If we presume the latter, than we're left wondering, "What exactly is the intrinsic conversion rate for fourth dimensional matter to three dimensional matter?

2 and 3. Four dimensional matter does not enter our universe, the event horizon for four dimensional matter marks the point when everything goes infinite and falls into the four dimensional singularity. Its frame of reference is different to ours and wouldn't be affected by our universes time. If you are outside of time you cannot interact because interaction takes time.
Not necessarily. Perhaps within our own universe yes, given that our universe is so intrinsically tied to time, but we can't assume interaction can't happen outside of time.

Also, even if we can't see any direct influence or interaction from the fourth dimensional space, that we're effectively tied to that space, being that we're the direct result of the four dimensional black hole, we should still see some level of influence. Even if that influence manifests in some unexpected way.

Basically a 4 dimensional singularity has created a separate 3 dimensional finite space in its event horizon. When 4 dimensional matter enters the event horizon time stops so it can't interact with 3 dimensional space.
But this presumes that our universe is finite. And as I pointed out above, there's no substantial evidence to assume this, or the opposite, are true.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I think this is the crux of my trepidation. This hypothesis, while extraordinarily intriguing, seems to assume a lot of parameters in order for it to function.

Still, like I'd said above, I've yet to look deeper into the hypothesis and the teams work. Perhaps further reading will answer some of my questions.
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
Vigormortis said:
Vivi22 said:
I certainly can't claim to have the answers to these questions, but I'm not sure our experiences with a 3D universe are particularly comparable to what would happen in a 4D universe. It's something we truly would have no intuitive understanding of, and may not even be subject to the same sort of physical laws our universe is (hell, it almost certainly wouldn't be).
Well, this is presuming our universe really is just three spatial dimensions. But regardless, even if the rules for a four dimensional universe were different than our own, that we are linked to that space would imply that forces there would have some influence here; even if their outcomes were dramatically different.

I haven't yet had a chance to look deeper into their hypothesis, so perhaps they cover it.

albino boo said:
1. Our universe came from the same place that is always did, a singularity. The big bang remains the moment when that singularity went from the infantile to the finite of our universe.
This assumes our universe is finite. An assumption no more or less valid than assuming it's infinite. We just don't know. (yet)

But regardless, I repeat the question. Where did the vast amount of matter and energy within our universe come from? Based on the hypothesis, our universe was created by a fourth dimensional star going nova and collapsing into a black hole. So either that was one hell a massive star, the nova somehow "created" an incredible amount of three dimensional matter, or the nova converted fourth dimensional matter into three dimensional matter. If we presume the latter, than we're left wondering, "What exactly is the intrinsic conversion rate for fourth dimensional matter to three dimensional matter?

2 and 3. Four dimensional matter does not enter our universe, the event horizon for four dimensional matter marks the point when everything goes infinite and falls into the four dimensional singularity. Its frame of reference is different to ours and wouldn't be affected by our universes time. If you are outside of time you cannot interact because interaction takes time.
Not necessarily. Perhaps within our own universe yes, given that our universe is so intrinsically tied to time, but we can't assume interaction can't happen outside of time.

Also, even if we can't see any direct influence or interaction from the fourth dimensional space, that we're effectively tied to that space, being that we're the direct result of the four dimensional black hole, we should still see some level of influence. Even if that influence manifests in some unexpected way.

Basically a 4 dimensional singularity has created a separate 3 dimensional finite space in its event horizon. When 4 dimensional matter enters the event horizon time stops so it can't interact with 3 dimensional space.
But this presumes that our universe is finite. And as I pointed out above, there's no substantial evidence to assume this, or the opposite, are true.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I think this is the crux of my trepidation. This hypothesis, while extraordinarily intriguing, seems to assume a lot of parameters in order for it to function.

Still, like I'd said above, I've yet to look deeper into the hypothesis and the teams work. Perhaps further reading will answer some of my questions.
A singularity has size zero, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvature. Its needs no other source of energy or mass. We live in universe that does not have infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvature and has an observable size. When 4 dimensional matter enters the event horizon, in its relativistic frame of reference time stops. In our 3 dimensional relativistic frame of reference time has not stopped. The two different frames of reference are not capable of interacting. From the 4 dimensional point of view everything is infinite but from our 3 dimensional point of view things are finite and measurable. In the moment of the big bang, density, temperature, space-time curvature went from being infinite and undefinable to finite and definable. This theory suggest what we observe as the big bang is the creation of 3 dimensional event horizon from a 4 dimensional singularity but our space-time is different from the 4 dimensional singularity's space-time. Its still a 4 dimensional singularity, with infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvature. Our universe exists where the 4 dimensional universe goes from finite and measurable to infinite and undefinable.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
albino boo said:
But that...still doesn't answer the questions I have. Perhaps I haven't worded them well. And it still presumes quite a lot of parameters of things we have no demonstrable or measurable knowledge of.

Regardless, as I'd said, I plan to investigate their hypothesis further.
 

geizr

New member
Oct 9, 2008
850
0
0
Unfortunately, we really don't have any means of dealing with the origins of the Universe other than wild-ass guessing and extreme relativistic hand-waving. The BICEP results is the first indirect glimpse we've ever had into the Inflationary Era of the Universe, which came after the Big Bang and is also a big fat question mark regarding the physics.

The biggest problem that I have with the suggestion the cosmologists in the video are making is that they don't make an accounting for the mass-energy of the currently observable Universe. There's a lot of mass-energy just in the stuff that we do see, and, if you accept dark matter and dark energy, the visible stuff constitutes only a mere 4% of the total mass-energy; the rest is in dark matter (24%) and dark energy (72%). A simple supernova is just not sufficient. This wouldn't mean their idea doesn't have merit; only the source or mechanism for the rise of sufficient mass-energy is questionable.

Unfortunately (man, I do use that word often, sometimes), in my opinion, until we finally have some significant breakthrough toward quantum-gravity, like actually deriving a testable result as opposed to the 10^502 untestable possibilities of string theory, it's going to be rough going to really say anything more about the beginnings of the Universe beyond "clearly it happened".
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
The biggest problem with this theory is that it would require that the universe be curved, but all observations suggest that the universe is flat.
 

Cerebrawl

New member
Feb 19, 2014
459
0
0
Vigormortis said:
This assumes our universe is finite. An assumption no more or less valid than assuming it's infinite. We just don't know. (yet)
While the evidence hasn't reached a point of certainty yet, it all points towards finite, so it's a more valid assumption than infinite.

The simple fact that we know it's expanding also definitely points towards finite. Since if it was infinite, continuing expansion would be a nonsensical idea.

We do know however that it is much larger than the observable universe.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
HOLY SHIT, I CALLED IT!

*Looks around, clears throat*

To explain...some time ago, I held the personal theory that the end of the universe will be with black holes left with nothing left to take in because the rest of the universe is expended. With nothing on the outside of a hole, I came up with the theory that the black hole would break down, taking its pinpoint mass and energy into an explosive outburst. Since everything begins and everything ends, I came to understand the idea that with matter and energy flowing TO somewhere eventually - a long, long, LONG time from how - it would never be held indefinitely. Hell, Stephen Hawking himself states that black holes are not forever. So, what happens when they're gone? How about...POP? Or BANG?

I came to call this my Pocket Universe Theory, whereby a black hole snips off and collects mass and energy until finally there's nothing left and with nothing left to hold it back it...it births a new universe. I later upgraded the idea that because it would all never be contained in one black hole that multiple ones are doing this and, in fact, creating a multiverse per every dead universe. Incredibly science-fictional, thoroughly unproveable, but...it's along the lines of what they're saying. Go me.
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
Cerebrawl said:
Vigormortis said:
This assumes our universe is finite. An assumption no more or less valid than assuming it's infinite. We just don't know. (yet)
While the evidence hasn't reached a point of certainty yet, it all points towards finite, so it's a more valid assumption than infinite.
There is no evidence either way to if the universe is infinite or finite, but that doesn't mean it's more likely to be finite than infinite. Both are entirely possible.

The simple fact that we know it's expanding also definitely points towards finite. Since if it was infinite, continuing expansion would be a nonsensical idea.
That's not true at all. It is entirely possible for infinite things to expand. The fact that they still remain infinite afterwards doesn't mean expansion hasn't occured. Remember, when dealing with the infinite, common sense will pretty much always fail you.

Think of the infinite hotel thought experiment:
There's a hotel with infinite rooms and every room is already filled and then another person comes and asks for a room. What does the manager do?
Simple, she asks every person in the hotel to just move to the next room. So the person in room 1 moves to room 2, the person in room 2 moves to room 3, etc. That way everyone still has a room and the new person can happily move into room 1.

Then, just as the hotel manager is nicely pleased with herself and her solution, a coach with 100 people arrives; so what does she do?
Now she askes everyone to move to their room number +100, so the new person in room 1 moves to room 101 and the person in room 2 moves to room 102 etc. This means everyone still has a room and the new 100 people can move into rooms 1 - 100.

Then, just as the hotel manager is getting into bed, after a hard day of breaking the rules of common sense, an infinite number of coaches arrive with an infinite number of passengers. The hotel managers thinks "For fucks sake! Where in hell am I going to stick all these people!" but then she has a bright idea:
What she does is ask everyone to move to double their room number. So the person in room 1 moves to room 2, the person and room 2 moves to room 4, the person in room 101 moves to 202, etc.
This leaves an infinite number of rooms free, all the odd numbered rooms, and so every person in the infinite number of coaches has a room they can move into!


The last scenario there is the equivalent of an infinite universe doubling in size. The universe, as a whole, is still infinite but everything inside it is twice as far apart as it was before.
 

Daaaah Whoosh

New member
Jun 23, 2010
1,041
0
0
As far as I can tell, this still begs the question, what started the four-dimensional universe? And if we're just stuck in the event horizon of one of its black holes, does that mean that universe is still around? Could there be many more universes just like ours in that universe? Could we be a part of a hierarchy of ever more complex universes? Also, if that is the case, is it possible that there is such thing as a two-dimensional universe, or a one-dimensional universe? I guess the answer to that is obvious, so I'll ask the bigger question, could there be life in these universes? And what would life in the four-dimensional universe be like? And does it matter, since black holes are pretty much impossible to get out of?
 

Cerebrawl

New member
Feb 19, 2014
459
0
0
Maze1125 said:
The last scenario there is the equivalent of an infinite universe doubling in size. The universe, as a whole, is still infinite but everything inside it is twice as far apart as it was before.
I think your lack of ability to wrap your head around infinite has failed you too.

Something which is infinite cannot double in size, it's infinite, there are no boundries, no limits to it. If you try to double it then nothing happens.

A divide by zero doesn't become any larger if you multiply it by two.