What if the universe as we know it...

[CurseTheSky]

...is just one speck in a vastly larger "universe?" Essentially, we could all be living on the inside of an "atom" in the grand scheme of things, unable to imagine (let alone observe) what could exist on the outside.

Aside from the mind-bending proposition, is there a name for such a theory or line of thinking?

Thanks.

 

[William Gaatjes]

...is just one speck in a vastly larger "universe?" Essentially, we could all be living on the inside of an "atom" in the grand scheme of things, unable to imagine (let alone observe) what could exist on the outside.

Aside from the mind-bending proposition, is there a name for such a theory or line of thinking?

Thanks.

No idea, but maybe one day they will discover that the center of the universe is still behaving like the beginning of the universe.

 

[firewolfsm]

It's not a theory because there's no reason to believe it. It's just an idea. I believe the movie MIB used that for an ending, that is the level of sophistication it has.

 

[C1]

Not so far fetched. This idea is along the lines of physicist Nassim Haramein's ( http://www.theresonanceproject.org/ ) ideas involving infinities within infinities.

http://www.theresonanceproject.org/research.html

 

[alyarb]

it depends on what you define to be a universe. scientists refer to it as this discrete space that we, along with all observable things, occupy. There may be universes beyond our universe, but mass and energy cannot transfer among them so they cannot be observed, and there is little sense in describing two separate universes as if they are open and simply connected, because then they would be observed to belong to each other as one universe. This makes it difficult for me to believe that there are tiny universes within this one. If every carbon atom was a tiny universe, what happens to those carbon universes when I'm cooking chicken on the grill? Energy in this universe is conserved, but in the tiny carbon universe a stupendous amount of heat is coming in from beyond the boundary, which implies an open and simply-connected region (ie, energy in the tiny universe is not conserved unless it shares energy from our macro universe).

 

[Bobathon]

There are lots of theories along the lines of what you're suggesting.

The nicest one is probably that of Lee Smolin, regarding the evolution of universes, which is called "Fecund Universes Theory" on Wikipedia (I don't know if he gave it that name)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin#Fecund_universes

There's more on it here: http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/be11.shtml (scroll to about half way down)

Here's a YouTube clip of Leonard Susskind explaining something similar in string theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJjDjxLQlTo

And don't go near Nassim Haramein unless you fancy a laugh - he's a complete fraud (see http://bit.ly/haramein if you need convincing). He's attracted thousands of scientifically illiterate followers who think he's the best thing since sliced bread, and he makes a living by lying to them and pretending to be a physicist doing serious research, and by blagging money from rich backers by promising magic sources of free energy. Someone could have fun doing a bit of investigative journalism on this guy...

 

[epidemis]

It's not that unsophisticated. Basically it's just an affirmation that scale is also just a relative size. Our entire known universe could be the makeup of a nucleus in an atom, of a molecule, of a cell, of another living organism. And we could just not peer beyond either because of the physics or lack of observation.

It's not science, you're right, just idle philosophy

 

[Gillbot]

 

[PsiStar]

I read this a few days ago "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35936420/ns/technology_and_science-space/"

An exerpt, "... some cosmologists think that our universe is actually only a bubble of space-time that was created during a period of rapid cosmic expansion, called inflation, after the Big Bang. Other bubbles may also have been created where inflation took place at a different rate, and perhaps something in one of the other bubbles is tugging at our universe."

I have read theories about the universe for as long as I think I could read and ultimately was never satisfied that there could be a boundary of any kind. And this notion of other bubbles (other big bangs ... out "there" ... is that the suggestion?) actually gives me comfort in that I have decided that the universe is truly infinite being comprised of additional universes. Keeping the context of that article.

As far as a name or term for this theory, I didn't find it although it must be there obscured in the reporting.

 

[bobdole369]

Exactly how I still think. Always thought that way.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I've always wondered this too. Also I've always wondered, what exactly marks the physical end of the universe? Are we in some kind of giant area that has limited space, or does it just bring you back to the other side like in super mario 2, or is it actually physically unlimited?

 

[William Gaatjes]

I always have a chicken and egg question in my mind when it comes to expanding universes, multi universes, space time bubbles, etcetera.

What was there first space or time ?
Here is my idea :

I think space is always around. Even when space is an empty vacuum. It is still filled with virtual particles that do not exist in our timescale. Space is always around. But it is time that needs to be formulated. There is always space, but at what dimensions ? It is time that specifies the dimensions. Time in our universe is connected to everything our universe is made off. I think of changes in perception of time, while leaving massive solid bodies like our planet. I think of redshift that does not seem to be a constant in this universe. I think of missing matter. The question of our universe is, was time exactly the same as time is now on this moment. I do not think so. And i think time continually keeps changing. Like an almost infinite complex set of oscillations that slowly dampens out. The universe will not contract, one day it will just cease to exist... But our solar system wil be long gone before that ever happens. I think the big bang theory is true though, just slightly different then the current theory is.

There are a lot of exotic theories about these questions. Just as my idea is exotic...

I have to do some reading about time dilation.

 

[Bobathon]

I read this a few days ago "... some cosmologists think that our universe is actually only a bubble of space-time that was created during a period of rapid cosmic expansion, called inflation, after the Big Bang. Other bubbles may also have been created where inflation took place at a different rate, and perhaps something in one of the other bubbles is tugging at our universe."

This is standard inflation theory... The 'inflation' of different bubbles happens after the Big Bang, and so are usually considered within our Universe, although it's outside the region that we can ever hope to have any contact with, at least by any law of physics that we know anything about now. So depending on how you define 'our Universe' you could say the other bubbles are outside it, as in your quote.

But I think this is different to the nested sort of universes in the original question. If it were up to me, I'd call them Horton Heard a Who universes. Or maybe little fleas have lesser fleas universes.

 

[C1]

Dr. Michio Kaku, in his last interview on coasttocoast, stated that the scientific community is now seriously considering multi-universe theories. In fact, the one dimensionality that may connect them is gravity.

 

[Bobathon]

Dr. Michio Kaku, in his last interview on coasttocoast, stated that the scientific community is now seriously considering multi-universe theories. In fact, the one dimensionality that may connect them is gravity.

I think these are parallel universes (branes) rather than universes within an atom.

 

[Paperdoc]

Not a new thought, by the way. A very old verse:

Greater fleas have lesser fleas
Upon their backs to bite 'em;
And lesser fleas still lesser fleas,
And so, ad infinitum.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Hindu teaching says Brahma sleeps and dreams the universe, wakes and ends this universe, returns to sleep and dreams another. Some say there is an infinite number of sleeping Brahma.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Even if this were true, what difference could it possibly make?

 

[WHAMPOM]

When I consider some Hindu teachings it seems like someone took a very advanced physics text book and retold it as bed time stories.

 

[Bobathon]

Even if this were true, what difference could it possibly make?

Good question. My guess is none at all. But there are people who like to work these things out... and who knows what predictive power they may turn out to have, or what measurable effect.

There are geeky freaks in this world who aren't very useful with their feet on the ground. Or even in the galaxy. Just give them a box-room in a theoretical physics department, a cheap coffee machine and a chalk-board, and let them play with this stuff. Cause you never know.

 

[Hacp]

I've always wondered this too. Also I've always wondered, what exactly marks the physical end of the universe? Are we in some kind of giant area that has limited space, or does it just bring you back to the other side like in super mario 2, or is it actually physically unlimited?

The theory is that the universe is without bound. Kind of like the earth. What marks the physical end of the earth? If you walk around the surface of the earth, where does it stop?

 

[earthman]

I've always wondered this too. Also I've always wondered, what exactly marks the physical end of the universe? Are we in some kind of giant area that has limited space, or does it just bring you back to the other side like in super mario 2, or is it actually physically unlimited?

If space is curved, then if you traveled long enough in a "straight" line, you would end up back where you "started", although the analogy is not exact, since time has to be taken into account, and space is expanding. Of course the line is only straight from your viewpoint. Transposing it to two dimensions, if you start walking in a straight line on the ground, in theory you will go around the earth and end up back at your starting point, assuming you can walk over the ocean, mountains, etc. Once again, the line appears straight, but only from your viewpoint, actually it's a circle. If space is curved and closed, then the universe is not infinite. If it's curved but open, the model gets more complicated. Another way of thinking of it is that the universe is only as big as it's actually expanded to, there is nothing "beyond" the edge, not even empty space. Since the farthest parts of the universe are expanding away the fastest, you could never accelerate fast enough to reach that region, so it would be a moot point. One could also think of the universe as potentially infinite, just taking an infinitely long time to reach that state.

 

[reallyscrued]

Is it just coincidence that atomic models kind of resemble planetary models?

 

[DrPizza]

Is it just coincidence that atomic models kind of resemble planetary models?

A solar system type of model for atoms was suggested once upon a time. Very shortly afterward, they realized that it would not work at all. Atoms are very little like solar systems.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

A solar system type of model for atoms was suggested once upon a time. Very shortly afterward, they realized that it would not work at all. Atoms are very little like solar systems.

Well that actually depends on whether you are looking at them or not, which begs the question, has anyone seen my cat?