Oh oh…

Looks like some people are postulating that “The Big Bang May Not Have Spawned The Universe After All” and have an alternative theory.

This new explanation suggests that the universe might actually be the result of the collapse of a four-dimensional star–a crazy black hole the likes of which we can’t even imagine. Some explanation:

In that model, our three-dimensional (3D) Universe is a membrane, or brane, that floats through a ‘bulk universe’ that has four spatial dimensions. [The] team realized that if the bulk universe contained its own four-dimensional (4D) stars, some of them could collapse, forming 4D black holes in the same way that massive stars in our Universe do: they explode as supernovae, violently ejecting their outer layers, while their inner layers collapse into a black hole.

The idea is that black holes as we know them–3-D black holes, in our known universe–have as a boundary a 2-D membrane, which is called an “event horizon.” But in the event of a 4-D black hole, the event horizon would be a 3-D event horizon–and according to models run by the team, a collapse of a 4-D star would spew material into the 3-D event horizon, slowly expanding over time. That event horizon could be, well, our universe.

Interesting shit. For some reason this is not the first time I have heard this challenge to the Big Bang mentioned, but this is definitely the first time I have heard that someone modeled it and actually did the work to prove it could be what happened. If this can be proved, I think the big question is where did that 4D star and the universe it resides in come from? What would it look like there? And does this thing keep going on ad infinitum with 5D to nD systems existing and infinite universes, each with the possibility of their own infinite offspring, which can then again have their own infinite number of n-x universes, going up and down the chain. And do we then have a 2D hanging out of every black hole in our universe? What the hell would any of that all look like?

The more we think we know, the less it really seems we do and understand. This is some seriously complex stuff out there. This may all be premature and nothing could come from it, but wow, if it pans out, if the reasearch and science prove this could be the reality of how our universe came about, this is really going to shake things up. Lots of work here to chec this out. Exciting stuff. and it may all go nowhere.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    That article reads like someone who just came to cosmology recently. The “problems” he mentions with the BBT aren’t really problems: the uniformity is actually *good* because it’s consistent with the matter density we’re measuring for the universe. Brane theory has been around for while; I’ve been reading papers on it for at least a decade. The problem is that there isn’t, at this point, an empirical test for these extra dimensions we’re supposed to have. So it’s an interesting speculation, but not really a scientific theory in any meaningful sense.

    I’m a little bit confused as to why this getting attention. The paper is on astro-ph but astro-ph is just a preprint server. You can put anything on there. I’m not even seeing that it’s been submitted to a journal. Curious to see if someone responds to it.

    Thumb up 0

  2. AlexInCT *

    The problem is that there isn’t, at this point, an empirical test for these extra dimensions we’re supposed to have.

    Yeah, I remember that being the case when I read about this a while ago too Hal. And without an empirical test of some kind, this is all speculation, albeit an interesting phenomenon to explore.

    So it’s an interesting speculation, but not really a scientific theory in any meaningful sense.

    Never said so and would definitely not say so without some decades of work. And without some form of empirical proof, directly or indirectly, well this is nothing but a weak hypothesis, at best. We can’t recreate the big bang for obvious reasons, but we were able to do a lot of stuff that verified that theorem works. It’s just interesting to me that other avenues are still being explored.

    I’m a little bit confused as to why this getting attention. The paper is on astro-ph but astro-ph is just a preprint server. You can put anything on there. I’m not even seeing that it’s been submitted to a journal. Curious to see if someone responds to it.

    I saw this earlier in the week in some other publication where they claimed a paper was actually submitted for review based on the model they used to test this, but could not locate it again. I don’t really know why this is popping up at this time, but it is an interesting subject to consider, even if it is not likely to be right.

    Thumb up 0

  3. Seattle Outcast

    Next up, a really bad sci-fi novel about exploring the 4D universe, and a b-grade, made-for-tv movie about a 4D Megashark that breaks through a black hole over the Altantic and starts flying around the Bermuda triangle looking for a mate.

    Later, Marvel comics will explain that Atlantis actually resides in the 4D universe, which is where magic comes from, and Power Girl’s costume will shrink some more.

    Thumb up 1

  4. Xetrov

    And do we then have a 2D hanging out of every black hole in our universe? What the hell would any of that all look like?

    This whole conversation is rather pointless unless Dr. Sheldon Cooper becomes the largest part of it.

    Allow me.

    Thumb up 4

  5. Section8

    The ultimate answer to all this is how does something come from nothing. Regardless of what chain of events created our universe, at some point there was nothing. And if nothing can indeed create something then given the infinite amount of time that nothing exists I’m willing to bet there are all kinds of physical properties and material in forms we couldn’t even comprehend, as well as other universes we could understand somewhat. Some probably existed long before our universe, and no doubt some will exist long after. Crazy shit.

    Thumb up 0