Try to Wrap Your Head Around This New Big Bang Theory Idea Pages 1 2 NEXT | |

13.7 billion years ago, the Big Bang led to the creation of our universe. It's a solid theory - solid enough for it to be the prevailing model that scientists base themselves on, because it explains a number of phenomena we observe in the universe. But what caused the Big Bang? What came before it? "Cosmology's greatest challenge is understanding the Big Bang itself," write Perimeter Institute Associate Faculty member Niayesh Afshordi, Affiliate Faculty member and University of Waterloo professor Robert Mann, and PhD student Razieh Pourhasan. But they've developed a new idea that may hold the answer. The current Big Bang model has this cosmic eruption originate from a singularity - the center of a black hole, a place of infinite density and temperature. The three researchers took issue with this model, asking how something as structured and ordered as our universe could originate from something that defies our understanding of physics. The researchers suggest that perhaps our universe is the three-dimensional mirage of a phenomenon in a four-dimensional universe. Consider a black hole; in our universe, a black hole has a two-dimensional event horizon (the "point of no return," where gravity becomes too powerful to possibly escape). But a theoretical four-dimensional black hole would then have a three-dimensional event horizon. In their model, the researchers believe that our universe may be the three-dimensional "wrapping" around a four-dimensional black hole's event horizon. Did I lose you? It can be difficult to conceptualize, but mathematically, it works out. And science is filled with examples of concepts that seem absurd but are mathematically possible. In the researchers' scenario, the universe came into being outside the event horizon of a singularity created by the death of a star in a four-dimensional universe. Now, before you say, "We already live in a 4D universe - the fourth dimension is time," let's clarify that these researchers mean four Of course, this simply passes the buck on the issues of the origin of the universe. Even if we know where our 3D universe came from, then where did its parent 4D universe come from? Let's hear your wildest theories.
| |

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. | |

Some people have written 4D games. I remember a 4D maze game. Takes half an hour to solve a 3*3*3*3 maze. There's also 4D Rubik's Cube puzzles out there, too. Captcha: time is an illusion Where does it get these oddly relevant lines from? | |

i wonder if we'll ever find out which of these origin ideas is right and if that group will ever accept the big bang | |

So let me get this right. Universe 1 has a hole in it. Stuff from that hole fell out and created our universe? Am I following? So does that mean all universes follow a fountain pattern? You know, spout water from the top then it falls on a "shelf" that we call a universe then overflows into a lower shelf? So do our black holes create universes too? Or is that universe a special snowflake? | |

Black Holes aren't really... holes. They're just high-density high-gravity objects that don't allow even light to escape from their pull. (It's kind of neat, actually. A Black Hole with the same mass as our Sun, for instance, wouldn't effect much of anything in the solar system. We should simply continue orbiting around it since the mass is the same. Wonder how it would look...) The "Horizon" is the point at which light can no longer escape the black hole, it's not actually a surface of any kind. I think what the theory means is that since the black holes in our universe have a two-dimensional even horizon (aka, they only exist in two spatial dimensions) and are created from massive solar deaths, that black holes in a four-dimensional universe would have a three-dimensional event horizon, which represents... our reality, essentially? I guess nothing is falling through anywhere, it's more of a "stuff perceived under the conditions it provides" type of thing. Since we exist in a three-dimensional world, we wouldn't be able to readily comprehend the universe outside that. I'm not a physicist or an astrophysicist of any sort, though. Mostly just going off of some basic stuff that I know. If it has any merit you have to wonder what does that actually mean in the contest of 4D to us, or otherwise. But, again, I'm not educated enough on the matter. EDIT: EDIT2: | |

Black Holes aren't doors. They're pits. A black hole is nothing more than a massive amount of matter compressed into a miniscule space, White Holes were a baseless hypothesis. | |

yes I know nothing escapes them, that's why i had to ask if I was following was right. They make it seem like they actually went anywhere since a creation of a black hole in one universe creating another universe entirely is kinda abstract. That and it was very similar to the old idea of our universe getting its material from another one. The only difference here is instead of membranes they mention black holes. | |

They do mention a membrane, one that wraps around this "higher space" black hole in which our reality is housed, thus the whole "mirage" bit. We don't exist beyond the event horizon of a black hole in a higher plane, we exist around it, except in three dimensions instead of two like in our universe. That's the gist of it, anyhow, as far as I'm seeing. | |

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 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. | |

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. | |

This falls into "yeah I understand your concept, it's just really stupid". Heck the people who hypothesised that the universe is actually 2D, and that what we experience is a hologram projected from that, sound more reasonable than this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle And to be clear, I don't buy that hypothesis either. | |

No,no,no... you guys got it all wrong, each universe is a bubble in a great froth! | |

Ah, no, you don't get me there. It's turtles all the way down! | |

I think Fez explains the extra dimension perception problem fairly well. If we were to see this 4th dimension, it'd be like Gomez able to perceive the 3D world when everyone else is stuck only ever being able to understand a 2D universe. It doesn't explain the blackhole part, but hey - Games can't do everything. ;-) | |

Hard to say...see as Lovecraft so plainly put it.. our 3 dimensional brains have no ability to conceptualize a 4 dimensional universe. And yes it is passing the buck. 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. Doesn't help that we are incapable of directly observing a black hole (though technically the proper term would be 'black-sphere' 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. And Time is not really a dimension... it's basically a way of ordering events by our brain. 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. | |

I don't see what is si hard about this theory. It bases its results probably in the same math that brought us the Holographic Principle. That being that the information that falls in a Black hole is preserved in its event horizon. So a an object that falls in a Black hole gets destroyed for its Universe, it really survives in the boundary of the Black hole it fell into. And considering that the surface of a n-sphere is in n - 1 dimensions it one could see it as losing a spatial dimension once it fall into the Black hole. Interesting result. | |

So we're a 3-Dimensional drawing on a 4-D blackboard, alright. | |

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). | |

Obviously it was projected from the event horizon of a black hole in a 5D universe. Which, naturally was projected from the event horizon of a black hole in a 6D universe. (I was going to trail off, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to change font size on this forum) | |

So... assuming that's true, how would we test that?
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.
This is a meaningless statement. You could literally say the same thing about anything in physics. | |

Our understanding of black holes is incomplete, but that is not the same as "very limited". Black holes are very well understood.
No, black hole is a perfectly correct term, one which quite accurately describes the gravitational effects of the singularity.
Well, in that case, "pragmatic theory" is completely wrong.
Wrong, sorry.
Maths doesn't "likely" make assumptions. It | |

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. | |

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. | |

Er... no shit? | |

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 | |

Yes. Completely. | |

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.
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. | |

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. | |

Well, this is presuming our universe really is just three spatial dimensions. But regardless, even I haven't yet had a chance to look deeper into their hypothesis, so perhaps they cover it.
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
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
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. | |

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. | |

We're all just dust in the wind, dude... | |

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". | |

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. | |

Pages 1 2 NEXT |

Posting on this forum is disabled.