Talk:Bubble universe theory

Original version

This article needs a "lede" summarizing exactly what the bubble universe theory is! :) See: Wikipedia:News style. jengod 17:01, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

i) Michio Kaku: Mr Parallel Universe Michio Kaku is playing the hottest game in town, with his new variation of string theory. By John Crace:

"Kaku slips into overdrive as he explains all the implications. "String theory predicts the universe is like a soap bubble that is expanding and dying," he says. Billions of years from now stars will blink out; the night sky will be dark and the oceans will freeze over. But we may have an escape route. Our soap bubble co-exists with other soap bubbles; every time a black hole forms it may be creating a baby universe". https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/feb/22/highereducation.highereducationprofile

ii) Brane cosmology refers to several theories in particle physics and cosmology related to string theory, superstring theory and M-theory.

BBC Documentary - Parallel Universes (5 of 5) https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xex7yf

iii) What is the bubble theory of the universe? In this picture, our universe is one bubble in a frothy sea of bubble universes. That's the multiverse hypothesis in a bubbly nutshell. It's not a bad story. It is, as scientists say, physically motivated – not just made up, but rather arising from what we think we know about cosmic inflation.17 Jul 2014 Is The Universe A Bubble? Let's Check - Inside The Perimeter https://insidetheperimeter.ca/universe-bubble-lets-check/

iv) Multiverse - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Level II: Universes with different physical constants

Bubble universes – every disk represents a bubble universe. Our universe is represented by one of the disks. Universe 1 to Universe 6 represent bubble universes. Five of them have different physical constants than our universe has. In the chaotic inflation theory, which is a variant of the cosmic inflation theory, the multiverse or space as a whole is stretching and will continue doing so forever,[60] but some regions of space stop stretching and form distinct bubbles (like gas pockets in a loaf of rising bread). Such bubbles are embryonic level I multiverses.

Different bubbles may experience different spontaneous symmetry breaking, which results in different properties, such as different physical constants.[59]

Level II also includes John Archibald Wheeler's oscillatory universe theory and Lee Smolin's fecund universes theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

v) One thing is for certain, the original contributors to this article have clearly demonstrated a total lack of respect to the science community by way of trying to hide "Bubble universe theory" which forms the beating heart of mainstream science.

Does anybody think, this article is worth keeping? --Pjacobi 21:23, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

oy this topic is okay with references to string theory and all that membrane stuff, but this person makes many assumptions and soforth (pretty much filled with pseudoscience bulloney) - 1-1

Replacement version

I've replaced the original article with a more or less sane stubby rewrite. Remove "attention" template (and remove from "pages needing attention") if this version is deemed acceptable. --Christopher Thomas 07:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems to be a good start. Do you think you can elaborate on the connection to the terms "chaotic inflation", "eternal inflation" and "eternal chaotic inflation"? --Pjacobi 11:01, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

I'd need and a bit more more research to see exactly where this article fits into the various inflationary models. What should probably actually happen is that "chaotic inflation" and "eternal inflation" should be folded into cosmic inflation, and the contents of this article should be merged in under the "eternal inflation" heading, if I understand the models correctly. I might take a stab at this some time next week, if nobody else does it. --Christopher Thomas 16:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I have a (stupid [?]) theory

I hope this is original :P. I had this idea floating in my head that we are in a zero-sum universe, all energy has its negative force and the net value is Italic textexactlyItalic text zero. Thus it may be assumed that this particular theory states that this universe may be artificially created if someone could manage to seperate out many forces that negate each other and 'sew' them up in an incoherent lump of slowly self-destructing mass of forces (Imagine a soup of equations.). (Imagine a computer crunching away at a soup of equations that finally computes to zero.) The problem is who actually 'sewed' up our one or it spontaneously erupted a la a Natoinal Georaphic issue talking aboyt Einstein and a bubble universe, how and what is processing the soup of forces.

Pesudonym: Lord Hellraiser Acronym of real name: KN That's not stupid, see Inflation for Beginners, JOHN GRIBBIN Barbara Shack 13:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we rename this version of multiverse

and call it a CAULIFLOWER universe? It seems to look that way, viewed from a few feet away.. As a maths person, my knowledge of physics is limited, but to me you guys (physicists/cosmologists) seem to be talking about things similar to General Relativity but one of the higher dimensional versions coming from string theory, still in some way modeled on a pseudo- Riemannian manifold (one with an indefinite metric) which carries various scalar and vector fields,.. is that about right? Then those fields satisfy various PDEs or variational principles or symmetry conditions, all cobbled together as well as we know how? Could some references on this level be made available? What I wanted to get to is this: PDEs folks nowadays always keep a weather-eye out for WEAK SOLUTIONS.. Often there are those but entropy or other side conditions are imposed to pick out the good ones. Especially in evolution equations such as the UNIVERSE, cauliflower or traditional. The question is are there careful maths treatments of weak solutions for cosmology, especially at BIG-BANG time and anywhere on the margin of the underlying pseudo-Riemannian manifold? Various guest speakers gave negative answers.. One issue here is this: Even if that discussion is done and satisfactory weak formulations of cosmology are found, the underlying manifold should be found as part of the answer not imposed apriori, because its topology, including holes, singularities, etc, is a main question in cosmology. Who knows, this could be fractal, not a manifold at all, with difficulties arising for PDE formulations even if weak, a CANTOR SET cosmological nightmare, to be truthful, not MADE PRETTY (=KOΣMOΣ, MUNDUS) ...

About the diameter (co-moving?) of the Universe @ 56 B L Y, is this a valid science concept (I think probably not).. Skeptiker 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

It seems that the article at Chaotic inflation theory refers to this same phenomenon, and the two articles should be merged. But I don't know which term is more prevalent/appropriate, so I don't know which way to merge the two. Shadypalm88 01:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should be merged. Chaotic inflation is the more recent and technical term and returns more google hits (58,000 vs 15,000), so i suggest the bubble universe be merged INTO chaotic inflation.Joncolvin 08:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged themBarbara Shack 13:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]