Prof. Eduardo Ganaldman from Ben-Gurion University and his colleague from Japan revealed a theoretical possibility to create a universe that would expand at its own speed and occupy the volume of our universe. Gendelman: "For that, there is a need for types of energy that have not been proven to exist in reality"
Is it possible that while these lines are being written, a new universe is spreading towards us that has gradually grown out of our universe, either by nature or by some alien, or that even our physicists have created it and it threatens to consume everything we know, the galaxies, stars, planets, and even a sphere our country?
Prof. Eduardo Gendelman of Ben Gurion University and Nobuyuki Saki of Yamagata University in Japan discovered that our universe may be facing such an end when they studied how patches spread in the fabric of space-time. Alternatively, it is possible that our universe is currently eating the neighboring universes, including perhaps the one from which it grew.
Inflation of the universe
According to the standard model of cosmology, our universe went through a phase of rapid expansion - known as inflation - right after the big bang. In theory, inflation can also occur in small cells of space-time and inflate them so that they become new universes that will disconnect from the existing universe, but no one knows what the switch is that causes this inflation. Gendelman says.
Gendelman, a professor of physics who specializes in particle physics, cosmology and gravitation, has been studying the early universe and the field known as "puppy universes" since his PhD at MIT in 1985. The only question is whether those puppy universes that are probably being created all the time both naturally and with man-made particle accelerators Adam, spread out in their own space, and as mentioned disconnect from our universe. The question is whether one of them could theoretically break through the shell and spread within our universe at its own expense.
"A new universe can be created"
"You can create universes so that they also take the place of the existing universe, but it depends on the properties of the bubble shell that separates the inside and the outside of that bubble. In my article and that of the Japanese colleague, we refer to these two cases. Bubbles, when produced, can take over the universe we live in or create a new universe that does not take our place," Gendelman explains.
"In a baby universe that detaches from our universe, the infinite energy within it is canceled out by negative gravitational energy. This is how a new, full and infinite universe can be produced without investing infinite energy. Gravitational energy has a negative sign, and this is already known from Newton's equations, so there is nothing new in this. We can produce such baby universes in particle accelerators but we will only see their beginnings and then they will disappear from our field of vision. It is possible that we created such universes, but they do not endanger us."
Have we created any universes yet?
"Universes of the kind that replace our universe have not yet been created. As for the disconnected universes. We may have already created, but we have no proof of that."
Will creatures that live in such universes know where they came from?
"In the initial stages of the new universes, quantum mechanics is of great importance. It erases all the history before the creation of that universe. It is possible that this is what also happened to our universe and because of this we cannot investigate what happened before the big bang".
What are the chances of creating universes that endanger our existence?
"The chance of producing universes that will replace our universe is quite low, because to do this you need strange materials that so far have not been able to produce. We need to create universes where the energy of their surface tension will be negative and cause the bubble to try to grow instead of shrinking."
At what speed will that universe expand at the expense of our universe?
"The new universe will spread into our universe at the speed of light."
How did you come to research the subject?
"My colleague and I and very few other researchers are working on the development of the theory of puppy universes to understand its implications. So far there are only theoretical calculations that show its programming but it has no experimental proof. The article, which is about to be published in Physical Review D (the section dealing with particle physics and astrophysics - AB), covers all aspects of universe cubs - the common and non-threatening as well as the rare and threatening. There are no objections to this theory, there simply aren't many researchers who deal with it."
44 תגובות
It is not clear whether science fiction has suddenly replaced the well-known and sane physics.
Can matter be created from nothing??? Did Einstein's formula for the relationship between matter and energy e=mc*2 get lost in some black hole???
Let's say a balloon is inflated, then it expands and expands, but no matter is created from nothing, there is only an expansion of existing matter.
Can some learned professor explain to us how a universe that we assume was created in a laboratory and spreads will suddenly create galaxies out of nowhere and create billions of tons of matter?
I don't know why the computer deleted my identity but of course, I am the one who wrote the previous comment
Chen T:
Last time I didn't bother to read the answer you got because I assumed it would be completely accurate.
At the moment, following a referral from another article to this article, I read it and find a place to correct a few things, especially regarding the dark mass:
The word "many" is of course relative, but you should know that the vast majority of the scientific community believes in the existence of the dark mass. Alternative theories of gravity cannot explain the results that it explains in principle and note that I say this without even referring to any specific theory of gravity. I can make such a strong claim without going into the details of a specific gravitation theory because what the dark mass explains are gravitational phenomena operating around regions where there is no visible mass at all and since such regions are spread throughout the universe unevenly and not completely correlated with the visible mass, there are regions where they are distinct Very much and there are areas where they don't exist at all and all this in situations where the visible mass is similar.
Also, there is no clear theory about the nature of this mass and contrary to the firm statement blacks are not included in it - many believe (and this time they are really many, although not the majority) that they may be included in it and that the whole dark mass is actually a normal mass that does not radiate because it lost the The ability to do so due to cooling and/or collapsing into black holes.
With regard to black holes, it should be expanded that their existence is a result of the compression of the mass and not of its quantity and that they capture without the possibility of escape any light ray that reaches a certain distance from their center - a distance called the Schwarzschild radius after the person who first calculated it for non-rotating black holes.
Regarding string theory, I will only add that it was not invented just to have fun with mathematical entities, but as part of an attempt to reconcile relativity and quantum theory.
the living Thanks.
String theory claims that the smallest particles of matter are tiny string-shaped particles within which many dimensions are embedded.
Dark mass is the missing mass in the universe. This mass is supposed to be due to motion calculations of the mainly spiral galaxies. Many do not agree to its existence and try to explain the problems of the motion of the galaxies in other ways such as the Hammond theory and more.
Black holes are bodies that have a gravitational force so strong that they attract even the light that reaches them or leaves them. Therefore, since no light is emitted from them, they are dark, hence their name. They are not included in the dark mass.
It was a short course. I suggest you join a course on the subject, at the Israeli Astronomical Society at the observatory in Givatayim
Goodbye
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I was delighted to read what you wrote, but as a result of my ignorance in the field I did not understand two concepts well, and I would appreciate it if you could explain your knowledge of the field.
1. What is string theory?
2. Dark mass - I read that other measurements of visible mass of each galaxy reach about 30% of what it should be and the rest is probably in dark mass or black holes (are black holes included in dark mass?) or antimatter. Is there any truth to that?
To Michael
I was very happy with the spirit of your response and especially the last sentence in your response inviting to continue the debate, which we all believe will be fruitful in the end.
At the moment there is almost no new data, so the debate will be an idle debate.
The situation at the moment - the movement of the Saul galaxy shows that there is a galaxy that moves according to Newton and only Newton currently explains its movement, agreeing that this gives an advantage to Newton's explanation of gravitation.
Remember that if a galaxy is discovered that rotates less than Newton, then Newton will have a serious problem. As far as I remember, you also agree to this.
So have a good evening everyone
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
You are willing to use the rules just a little bit beyond the limits in which they have been proven. OK. And what do you do when you have to deal with what happens beyond the range where you agree to use the laws that have been tested in our environment? Do you prefer to use rules there that have not even passed this test? I assume not and that, despite your contradictory statement, you too, if asked a question about the behavior of systems outside of the legitimate range in your eyes, will be forced to use only the predictions provided by the existing theories.
Mund and Pushing Gravity are examples of laws that have already failed in the experiment being carried out in our immediate environment. Therefore they are not accepted in the scientific community. By the way - Pushing gravity suffers, as I remember, from many problems - it's not just about a few calories but lots and lots of calories, but not only that - it also suffers, for example, from a friction problem pointed out by Feynman and other problems that we have already addressed and which are well explained on Wikipedia (including the principle problem formulated by Kant, showing that even the motivation behind the search for such a theory is illogical because there is no escaping the existence of attractive forces that are not explained by pushing even logically).
Regarding the dark mass - you did not fix anything in my approach and if there was something broken in it - it remains broken.
The very existence of the Saul galaxy shows that the laws of gravitation we know also work on a galactic scale.
Therefore, we must find an explanation for the faster rotation of other galaxies that is not a result of the laws but of something in the structure of the galaxy. Dark matter is the best explanation we have and contrary to what you say - pushing gravity does not provide any explanation for this rotation and if it did provide an explanation it would also have to cause it in the Sol galaxy (this is a special case of the more general claim I made earlier), so there is more here hiding one.
Of course, the existence of dark mass is confirmed by many other observations - as I pointed out to you - including the existence of gravitational dust around regions where we do not see any mass.
In conclusion - I agree with your claim that we still have differences of opinion. I thought that the things I said here (which I also said before) convinced you, but it turns out that even if they did, this conviction has not yet been assimilated into your consciousness.
If you are still not convinced, you are welcome to continue arguing and I guess you will be convinced in the end.
To Michael
Continued from one last night
Dark mass I do not agree with and think that an explanation of pressure created by particles flying in the universe is a better explanation.
As for the Maund theory, I'm not a fan of it at all, but I think it's as good an explanation as the dark mass. It manages to explain the situation in the universe without dark mass.
The galaxy that was discovered without dark matter ("Shool galaxy") is a blow to the theory.
I hope you will agree with me that there are still differences of opinion between us and that is really legitimate, but I am happy that in many cases we have come to an agreement and in many cases we have reduced the differences of opinion, which is really good.
I have a feeling that I will be dragged into a fruitless debate here that has almost nothing to do with science, so let's try not to be dragged into "linguistic idioms".
So since that's the case, I'll cut it short, and let's save our energies for more fruitful things.
May we have a nice and fruitful weekend, and may no black cat pass between us.
In appreciation
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Well done
I really don't want to open a pandora's box of arguments so I'll try to do it carefully.
I oppose the cosmological principle and do not think that any accepted law should be used beyond the range of measurements in which the law was tested. The reason is that every phenomenon always has an infinite number of correct laws that differ slightly from each other. The common one among them is the simplest (according to Ockham) so far there is agreement.
But, taking the conventional and "dominating" it beyond the range of measurements is something that will not be done!, it actually causes the acceptance of erroneous ideas such as mass and even energy, and also singular points.
It seems to me that in a previous argument between us we came to the conclusion that you are ready to rule the accepted over the entire universe, and I am ready only slightly beyond the range.
For example, you are willing to rule, albeit with reservations, the accepted laws of gravitation for the entire universe and I, with reservations, only for ranges of a maximum of a few hundred astronomical units.
Another thing, please check where the dark mass is clustered in the spiral galaxies, I think that's where I corrected your approach, but, unrelated, I referred to your compliment and said that it's a shame that people usually don't agree to admit their mistakes.
Listen, I enjoy reading your comments because they clarify things we disagree on and I always feel richer in knowledge after the clarification.
By the way, I started looking at the collection of comments on the Hebrew Wikipedia, and it occurred to me that the "anthropic" definitions accepted by the ultra-Orthodox are a little closer to my definition. But I will continue to study the subject.
And regarding a black hole, when everyone talks about a singular point they are talking about a point, maximum, at best Planck size, but I think the concentration of mass will be larger than Planck size and in addition, a black hole of greater mass will shrink into a larger body.
This is in addition to the special and unacceptable opinions I have about black holes, which this is not the place to go into detail.
And regarding the pushing gravity, you also agreed that gravity will be created as a result of particles moving in space, but you said that due to energy calculations heat will be created and therefore the pushing gravity is an incorrect theory. I am not ready to give up this theory because of "a few calories" and am trying to overcome the stumbling block of heat.
So it's late and everything is in a good spirit without drawing hasty conclusions, and I apologize in advance for any offense to any of the commenters if there was any..
And what's important is that I'm not ashamed to say "from all my teachers I've been educated".
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
It really doesn't bother me if you continue to dream about pushing gravity as long as you are aware that at least in all its known formulations it contradicts the findings and that before you go back to trying to convince the public of its correctness you must overcome these contradictions. A motivation to prove something never did anyone any harm as long as it was restrained by critical thinking and I feel that this is the situation you are in today - you want the theory to be true but you don't try to convince it because it doesn't pass your scrutiny.
I don't recall ever expressing "faith" in the cosmological principle, dark mass, dark energy, or singularities. Regarding the dark mass, I simply said that it is the best explanation we have for a number of phenomena and you did not offer a better explanation (ie - you offered Mond but I am convinced that it is also in contradiction with the findings). We didn't talk about dark energy at all and about singular points I said that according to quantum theory and its continuations - like string theory they are not completely point-like. What you said about them is that they don't exist. It's an ill-defined claim as long as you don't say what's there and as long as you don't there can be no debate.
We did not talk about the cosmological principle at all, but you agreed with me that as long as it is not proven otherwise, we have no reason not to accept the laws that govern our places as those that govern everywhere else, and if a contradiction is discovered at some point, then we will simply amend the laws. I think the cosmological principle can come under that umbrella.
You are long overdue to read the link I sent and others and study all these topics and also come to the conclusion that the current theories (which - as mentioned - are simply the best guess we have that matches the existing findings) say exactly what I said (and I repeat what I said both in this response and in previous ones regarding that the size of the singular "point" is not zero and I ask you that when you find this out, do not say that you were right and I was wrong).
Regarding the spelling mistake that you found 20,000 times on the net, I am not at all surprised since most people - as I said - do not know what the principle is at all and I even assume that many of them pronounce it with an E at the beginning instead of an A because they do not even understand that it is not related to entropy.
I will add just one more thing - it is not clear to me why you found it appropriate to admit that there are people who do not admit their mistakes. After all, I mentioned you to praise on this subject. Are you implying that there was some mistake I should have admitted to? I would love to hear if you think there is such a mistake and if you have any support for this opinion.
In order to bring about a precise understanding of the controversy on the anthropic issue, I am quoting what is said from the "Evolution of Theories" articles, in the previous section I showed the compatibility between theories and living beings and shows the equivalence right up to the point of exchanging words, and hence:
a quote:
"... We accept that the entropic principle is the one that guarantees us a successful theory. Admittedly, the word "entropy" derives from the word "man" which is a living being, therefore if there is a principle in the case of theories it must derive from the word "theory" ("the theoretical principle"?) But, if we agree that a theory, whatever it is, arises from being "human", then it is clear that the entropic principle is responsible for any theoretical principle, and necessarily also for the conclusion:
If the entropic principle requires the existence of a (superior) living being in biological evolution, then there must always be a successful (superior) theory in theoretical evolution!" End quote.
That is, in biological evolution, everything is aimed at the formation of more surface creatures that are suitable for the new surface conditions that are created. This eventually leads to the development of a super creature. Therefore, if there is compatibility between the evolving creatures and the evolving theories, then here too evolution leads to the development of new theories that will eventually lead to the development of a super theory.
I ask myself now if this is not what the anthropic principle meant at least in the spirit of things. I'll go ahead and check it out.
It should be noted that even in the event that the entropy principle defines something different, this does not detract from the interesting comparison I made between the evolution of theories and the evolution of life. For my part, what I have established as the anthropic principle will be called "the Chen T principle" after the great commenter who called for cooperation between me and Michael.
You should also pay attention to the following words of Michael in his response:
"In the anthropic principle as you define it, almost no one believes, and many believe in the possibility of the existence of a super theory." End quote.
Well the definition I give and it doesn't matter if it is really of the entropic principle, or the "Chen Ti principle", this definition is in full correlation with the existence of a super theory.
That is to say, in my opinion, it is impossible to agree to the super theory, and dismiss the formation of a super being as a goal, outright, as many do.
I'm still having trouble coming up with a definition that is acceptable to everyone on the subject of the anthropic principle, and it seems to me that everyone sees the principle as the speed of their heart (perhaps me too)
I will probably continue and travel through the definition space. It is my right, of course, to find one that suits me and that is agreed on at least in part.
I've philosophized enough for one comment, and the night is still young.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Michael
A number of things remain open between us, such as pushing gravity, which I am far from dismissing despite the "weakness" points in the theory that you drew my attention to.. Apart from that, the cosmological principle, the dark mass, the dark energy, singular points also remain open. Even in these we are far from agreement.
I admit that I am open enough to accept your opinion when I am wrong, but it seems to me that some people find it difficult to admit when they are wrong.
Now I'm going to delve into two things that are open between us and they are: the anthropic principle (which I decided to agree to write in T to distinguish it from entropy, and I'm only doing this for good measure because if you type in T in Google you will get 173 value and if you write in T you will get Over 20,000 values. So you have to appreciate what I am willing to do for the peace of the house).
A second thing we disagree on is whether the diameter of the mass building the black hole is zero (singular point) or an actual size greater than zero.
I am going to investigate these two things also with the help of the link you sent me.
Have a wonderful evening.
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Yehuda:
The Hebrew text of Wikipedia may indeed be confusing but the English text leaves no room for doubt.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
And in relation to the fact that no one commented? I have nothing to say except that most people don't know enough to spot mistakes. In my opinion, Chen T's response clearly shows this.
By the way, to your credit, you were open enough to accept my opinion in all the debates I remember (admittedly, at the beginning of our journey, after many debates) and I don't know about any issue that is currently in dispute between us (except for the issue of the anthropic principle which I am convinced will be resolved soon)
L Chen T
Usually when two people write an article they agree on most of it, so the article comes out richer. With me and Michael, I am not sure that we will find material for a common topic and that we will be able to finish it without the business exploding.
In addition, I did not come across Michael's article here on the Hadaan website, who certainly wrote articles on various topics.
Please also note that for reasons reserved with him, Michael does not see fit to comment on your proposal.
I think that the current situation, where whoever wants to writes and whoever wants to comment, is a positive situation and there is no reason why it should not continue like this.
So, have a good and peaceful weekend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Judah
Your joint article will be interesting because of your differences of opinion. This way the readers will be able to get different perspectives of each topic and expand their horizons. The fact that you are grounded in your opinions only shows the extensive knowledge you have to base those opinions and will of course enrich the article.
Of course, the culture of discussion and a matter-of-fact response on each topic are necessary for comparing the arguments.
To Michael
We have differences in the definition of what we understand as the anthropic principle, and it is difficult for me to find an understandable and single definition. Wikipedia in Hebrew does not facilitate the issue. and allows for a collection of definitions, not to mention the "reasons" that ultra-Orthodox websites make of it, which basically see the planning of creation.
At the end of the week I will delve into it. I'll just point out that to date no one has corrected me about the definition so I'm not at all sure that I'm wrong. Food for thought.
And Mr. Chen T
If there is a need to collaborate with Michael for the purpose of writing an article, I have no objection, but it took me and Michael a long time until we reached the level of debate and objective and adequate responses, that is, we also had "difficult" times.
In addition, writing an article together may encounter difficulties because we are very well-founded in our opinions and have many issues on which we disagree.
This is my opinion and I will of course respect Michael's opinion whatever it is.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda and Michael,
After reading all your comments, I think it could be fascinating to hear the two of you talking and discussing topics you both know.
Just by reading your responses I was delighted and enriched with knowledge and perspectives.
I really think that the writing of a joint article by the two of you on the connection between the big bang and the quantum, can be useful to all the surfers of the site, as well as on the possibility or impossibility of black holes in the center of the galaxy and our universe, and the chance of another big bang.
Sweet dreams,
Chen Lahav
Yehuda:
The anthropic principle (pay attention - I write it with a "t" not a "t" so that it is understood that the word comes from the root man anthropos and not from the word entropy) does not mean that everything leads to the creation of a person in the universe, but on the contrary - it says exactly the first point you raised (so to speak as a reservation ) and that the very fact that the question arises results from the fact that the place and the conditions in which it was asked are such that are suitable for the existence of the questioner.
I did not read the proof that you claim to provide for the equivalence of the claims about super theory and the anthropic principle, partly because, as mentioned, your definition of the anthropic principle is incorrect.
I am quite convinced that there is also a mistake in the proof because almost no one believes in the anthropic principle as you define it and many believe in the possibility of the existence of a super theory. Although it is true that many can also be wrong, but as I understand that is not what is happening here.
I have already expressed my opinion that a single theory that would describe everything that happens in the universe is not possible because of Godel's theorem, but this has nothing to do with the anthropic principle. This opinion also does not contradict the possibility of achieving the goal that many would today call a theory of everything, which is the theory that will unite the theory of relativity with the theory of quantum
Of course: two points and not "two"
Speaking of the entropic principle - the principle that claims that everything leads to the formation of man in the universe, I would like to point out two points.
First point - it is not "fair" to ask such a question because the very question can only be asked by an intelligent being, which already exists. That is, there will always be an intelligent being (a person) who asks such a question and therefore can see himself as a target.
And a second point - in my article - "Evolution of Theories" I proved that the question: - "Is man the purpose of the universe" corresponds to the question: - "Does a theory that explains everything must be the result of theories" that is, in front of the "entropic principle" I placed a "theoretical principle" .
An interesting conclusion from this must be that those who do not agree to the existence of the "entropic principle" do not actually agree to the existence of a "super theory" that is being sought for, and vice versa.
The two claims are related to each other.
For those interested:
http://www.hayadan.org.il/wp/rule-of-thumb-0502086
Have a good day at least in our universe
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I did come across the approach presented by Yuval Neman in the past and it looks interesting.
It is also interesting that the motivation that led him to these speculations was the same motivation that led others to the conclusions regarding the existence of a God who caused the universe to be this way (because in almost every other universe intelligence would not have developed and perhaps even life would not have developed - due to the shortness of time and the scarcity of chemical wealth).
Two books that presented, among other things, such a thought are Cosmic Coincidences and The Fifth Miracle.
Although these are books written by ordinary scientists, they include thoughts about intelligent design and God. Those who read them critically see their bias (and there are a number of logical fallacies that betray this bias. I even wrote a letter to Paul Davis pointing out these errors but I did not receive a reply) but both were decent enough to also mention the anthropic principle as a possibility.
To Michael
Must note that your answer is interesting and thought-provoking.
But the question should perhaps be: - Why do we live in a universe like ours, what does it have that the others don't have? This is different from the approach in the article here, the main point - are there other universes.
Yuval Neman also dealt with this issue. He did not address the question:- can we create another universe or does another universe swallow us or we it. He accepted the fact that any universe can naturally create baby universes and then asked himself what makes our universe special.
Well, I had a conversation with the late Yuval Na'eman on this subject. He referred to this while we were discussing an article I wrote - the evolution of theories, so he talked about the evolution of universes.. According to him, (as far as I remember them), there is something in our universe With his collection of laws and his black holes that creates cubs resistant universes that also create cubs as above. If we change the laws even slightly, it will damage the cub of the universe that will be created and it will not be durable for a long time.
This will cause most of the universes that will be created and exist to be universes similar to ours, so the most statistical chance is that we will be in a universe with laws and structure like ours.
The approach to the universe in Yuval Neman's explanation was like to a living being, which gives birth to beings in the system. evolutionary. Really interesting.
For those interested, Yuval dealt with the subject in his book: Order from the Random. And I also mentioned it in my "evolution of theories" articles. Here on the science site.
I, as a person who doesn't believe in black holes and strange singular points, have a hard time dealing with a multi-universe approach, but I have to say Michael, you put the doubt in me. Well, really, why should there be only one?
Food for thought.
Have a good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
The difference between zero and one is relatively the same as the difference between zero and infinity, and if there is a process that created one universe, the theory should actually be complicated to explain why it created only one and decided to stop.
In this sense, a situation of infinite universes is much simpler.
So, if you're looking for a single, small, even pizzy-pizzy example to explain one universe, it's likely to require an infinite number of universes.
For 14 billion years (or however long) we slept quietly at night without some universe-Simba (the son of the 'Lion King') devouring us, and suddenly we have to look under the quantum for a reason to worry?
who knows? Soon they will propose to NASA to establish a system to intercept universes just as NASA maintains a system to intercept asteroids.
To this we would say: 'May they be healthy'
Bye
Dear Mr. Michael
It is clear to everyone that there are observations of our universe, but show me one small, even tiny, even pizzy, pizzy, observation of another universe?? By this I mean that there are no observations and yet I am told a whole bunch about other universes.
But I agree with your answer to Aryeh Seter that the infinity in the quoted sentence is unnecessary. Where do you even decide on infinite energy??
What to do Michael, but I also agree with your comment 17, it's really not written there what my father says. But I leave the explanation of the strings to you. I don't like theories with more than four dimensions, and even that barely.
Have a nice evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Avi:
Maybe that's the intention but that's not what it says. The claim that the universe is always infinite does not even arise.
Is this the case in their theory?
By the way - also the energy in an infinite universe (in terms of volume) that the amount of matter in which is finite can be finite.
More than that - if it must be offset only by gravitational energy and if (and here we return to the justifications of string theory) there are no point sizes then the energy must be finite.
To Arie I actually understood the sentence, he says that you can build an infinite universe without investing infinite energy
Aryeh Seter:
I think you're right but I can't vouch for that.
Avi:
If it would be possible to get the response of the interviewees to the question, we would be grateful.
To Judah:
Surely they made observations.
Among other things, they watched the universe and still don't understand what caused it to start developing.
In general, this topic of "the beginning of time" is not accepted by anyone in the full and intuitive sense of the word, and therefore all kinds of scenarios are tried in which it would be possible to explain the creation of the universe as part of an infinite sequence.
This is one of these types of theories and if you read between the lines of the article you can see that even the scientists involved in it do not feel committed to it. The only thing they are obliged to do is to check its consequences to enable its confirmation or refutation. It's just straight scientific work.
To me:
Your claim is incorrect.
String theory is one of the ways in which we try to deal with the observations that confirm the quantum theory and those that confirm the theory of relativity when it is known that under certain conditions that we cannot reproduce in the laboratory they should collide with each other.
This attempt to unify relativity and quantum theory is certainly required from the findings.
I'm sure in the next section
"In an infant universe that disconnects from our universe, the infinite energy within it is eliminated by negative gravitational energy. This is how a new, full and infinite universe can be produced without investing infinite energy."
You need to delete all the times the word infinite appears.
Please confirm or explain if I'm wrong.
Today, and in fact in general, a lot of wild - even very wild - theories were thrown into the air, in most cases theories that were dropped quite quickly and not necessarily just because there were no proofs but because gaps were found on the other side that could not be bridged.
Therefore, in this case I am not particularly excited, especially after there was once an article here that two scientists claimed that by our very observation of the universe we are bringing the universe to an end, in connection with the quantum theory that they exaggerated a bit in their imagination.
I do not at all rule out an idea presented here because it has some logical basis and as far as I can see an idea was presented in this article for something that there is a certain feasibility regarding it.
Dear Michael
I do not rule out the right of these great scientists to say whatever they want. But Amber you and I are allowed to comment on what was said and everything I say is at most a fictional story. And regarding Einbar, all I claimed was that she deserves a chance to explain her words and you are right in your words that they were unclear. So what?, try harder and understand. So when we leave Ainbar.
I accept the five steps in your response"
1. Make observations,
2. formulate theories that correspond to them,
3. Calculations are made, sometimes complicated, to see what all the possible consequences of the theories are and how these consequences can be tested in an experiment
4. Experiments are conducted again
5. And again, God forbid
I just don't think the esteemed professors got past the first step. Simply, from the eyes of their mathematical mind, they made observations. Exercising the wings of their imagination is not observation.
But again their right to express their opinion, and my right to confront them.
And I absolutely do not disparage them.
Have a good and blessed evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael for response number 3
The order you wrote is not necessarily correct,
For example string theory, first a theory was formulated and now experimental justifications are being sought for it.
jewel.
: )
Fibonacci:
I don't think it's similar at all.
The examples you gave were formulated to show ridiculous conclusions and they do deliver the goods.
But why do they look ridiculous? Simply because our experience disproves them.
This is not the case before us.
I don't want to spoil the atmosphere, but can anyone imagine a faster death than that? (If you have to die, then let it be at the speed of light... the best...)
This refers to breaking the symmetry of boiling water at 35 degrees at one atmosphere pressure. And in fact, not necessarily boiling, this can manifest itself in turning into ice or even into a magnetic material, meaning a type of change that has not yet been observed
Just be clear:
Water can really boil even at 35 degrees.
For this, of course, they must be found at a lower pressure than the atmospheric pressure we experience.
The attempt to reach a deep understanding of the boundaries where space time and gravity converge as the shaper of the patterns. It has gone through several upheavals in recent years. After many revolutions in the field there are several schools of thought. The holy grail of all is the hoped-for unification of general relativity and quantum physics. It is also clear that the goal of physicists is not only pure mathematics but mainly the consequences that can be predicted from these mathematical understandings.
To the extent that the possible consequences are extreme and crazy but cannot be tested, there is certainly a place to publish and stimulate the imagination of others to deepen and discover creative thought. In general, the understanding of the last limit of the limits seems more and more limitless, at least according to the approach presented in the article. Why is this similar: to a scientist who discovers exactly how symmetry is broken when water is heated to one hundred degrees. And to prove this, he claims that according to his theory, a situation of symmetry breaking is also possible At ten or thirty-five degrees, or at any temperature you want.
Yehuda:
Science works like this:
1. Making observations,
2. formulate theories that correspond to them,
3. Calculations are made, sometimes complicated, to see what all the possible consequences of the theories are and how these consequences can be tested in an experiment
4. Experiments are conducted again
5. And again, God forbid
These scientists are in the third stage.
What is this disdain?
After all, yesterday when you tried to defend Amber (who made no effort to even define what she was saying - let alone draw testable conclusions from it) you claimed exactly the opposite!
One thing is clear - theories of this kind are started with drawings on paper, and paper tolerates everything.
Things are said here that it will be impossible to prove in life.
The construction of the new universes is based on the known laws of science. These laws were tested only with normal sizes of phenomena and not singular points or with enormous speeds, therefore they are not necessarily true outside the range of their measurements. Other universes are certainly outside the range of measurements., therefore the conclusions have no value. How can we know what the speed of light is there? How can we be sure that there are electromagnetic waves there at all? Concepts like cosmic crust are not fully defined.
Such an article has value only as a fictional story.
Anyone can say what they want (almost) and the value of it is no less good than the words of the respected scholars.
Have a good day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
"Quite low" but not zero, otherwise there would be no budgets.