Slashdot Log In
Do We Live In a Giant Cosmic Bubble?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:20 AM
from the i-live-in-my-own-universe dept.
from the i-live-in-my-own-universe dept.
Khemisty writes "Earth may be trapped in an abnormal bubble of space-time that is particularly void of matter. Scientists say this condition could account for the apparent acceleration of the universe's expansion, for which dark energy currently is the leading explanation.
Until now, there has been no good way to choose between dark energy or the void explanation, but a new study outlines a potential test of the bubble scenario.
If we were in an unusually sparse area of the universe, then things could look farther away than they really are and there would be no need to rely on dark energy as an explanation for certain astronomical observations.
'If we lived in a very large under-density, then the space-time itself wouldn't be accelerating,' said researcher Timothy Clifton of Oxford University in England. 'It would just be that the observations, if interpreted in the usual way, would look like they were.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I know I do (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I know I do (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Management (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Management Would it SUCK or... (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know, but it'll probably cost a lot more than 700 billion dollars to bail the universe out.
Parent
Re:I know I do (Score:5, Funny)
6000 years ago, god farted in a Cosmic Bathtub.
Parent
Re:I know I do (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
I always wondered... (Score:5, Interesting)
If this was why the galaxies appear to rotate to quickly at the edges.
Would the greater density at the galactic cores cause time to go slower and effect the apparent speed as observed from the exterier of the system?
Re:I always wondered... (Score:5, Informative)
No. The gravitational forces required for time dilation to be that strong are many orders of magnitude stronger than what you'll find on the galactic scale.
Parent
You mean like... (Score:3, Interesting)
a 3 million sun heavy black hole...like the one in the center of many galaxies including our own?
Re:You mean like... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You mean like... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:You mean like... (Score:5, Informative)
that would slow down time in the area.
The point is, no, it would not, not to the degree you are thinking of. Look, we do know what a galaxy is! We know there's a lot of mass in there! And it's easy to calculate the time dilation it causes, and it is negligable.
Parent
Being special (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I'll believe that there are regions of space that are more dense than others. I'll even believe that we are in one of them. ( This is no harder than believing in dark matter and dark energy, and it's before breakfast )
But what I find hard to believe is that we are in the exact center of such a region. So therefore, the universe should appear to have different properties in different directions. Has anybody seen that?
Re:Being special (Score:5, Funny)
Man you ain't kidding. Take a look at the Capitol Hill region of space. That is one ultra dense region of hot air, that isn't just warping space-time this is a region of space where the wildest of idea's are warped into reality.
Parent
Dark Matter (Score:4, Funny)
Capitol Hill region of space. That is one ultra dense region of hot air
Actually, that particular region of the universe consists of dark matter. It's an enormous pile of it, brown in color, steaming and giving off fetid odors that would knock a buzzard off a shit-wagon*. The region is full of it and amazingly, endless numbers of primitive little life-forms actually burrow themselves into it and suck nutrition from it.
* We miss you, George.
Parent
Re:Being special (Score:5, Interesting)
Except if such specialties make our sentient life possible (or much more probable).
Parent
The anthropic cop-out (Score:3, Informative)
Except if such specialties make our sentient life possible (or much more probable).
That's called the anthropic principle, and Wikipedia's article [wikipedia.org] cites criticisms by several philosophers of science who call it a cop-out.
Re:The anthropic cop-out (Score:5, Insightful)
It's perfectly reasonable to think that, if sentient life requires unusual circumstances, then we will find ourselves in unusual circumstances.
It's already the case that we're in a rather odd location. Pick a random point in the universe. Does it happen to be on the surface of a planet? Of course not.
Parent
Re:The anthropic cop-out (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The anthropic cop-out (Score:5, Insightful)
I may be wrong, but isn't the term anthropic principle essentially the opposite of what you're describing? IMHO the anthropic principle just states that there is nothing special about our particular environment beyond the fact that we happen to live here and there is not much else that we have experience with?
Sadly, religious nutjobs have completely turned around what was once an important scientific reasoning tool that existed to make sure our observations of nature are not biased towards human existence.
The anthropic principle is the mother of all cause-and-effect observations. The obvious cause here is that we live in a certain environment with a certain set of rules and random environmental factors, as a consequence of this, we have turned out the way we are now - including our way of interpreting the world around us. Now religious people, for whatever fucked-up reason, believe our environment was actually created by someone just for us to live in, and that the purpose of our universe is to support human life - thereby turning common sense on its head by confusing cause and effect.
Parent
Re:The anthropic cop-out (Score:5, Funny)
I've always preferred the misanthropic principle, myself. "We see the universe the way we do because people are idiots."
Parent
Re:Being special (Score:5, Interesting)
If you get far enough away from this universe, and I'm talking 'Douglas Adams' far, this universe would appear to be perfectly uniform. However, the closer your observation point becomes, the easier it is to distinguish the clumps, bumps, peaks, valleys, troughs, etc. in the density. At a very close, human-type scale, the density changes are very easy to spot. How dense is the space between the Earth and the Moon as compared to the Earth itself?
Parent
Re:Being special (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it so hard to believe? Let's say for instance I tell you that there is a one-in-a-million chance that a person will have a particular dream. Every night, 300 million Americans go to sleep. Would you find it hard to believe that at least one person has this dream every night?
And what if you were that one person last night? Would you think you were special? You would, if you were bad at math.
So why is it hard to believe that our planet exists in conditions that have incredibly low odds? The universe is not only more vast than anyone can imagine, it's also been around for over 13 billion years! For all you know, these "special conditions" you complain about could have happened a million times by now.
Parent
Re:Being special (Score:5, Informative)
There's an unexplained anisotropy [wikipedia.org] in the cosmic microwave background. Hot and cold spots don't appear to be quite randomly distributed. Nobody's come up with a good explanation, and it might be an instrumentation error or due to some local gravitational anomaly - say, lensing around the next supercluster over - but at the moment it's very unclear.
Parent
Re:Being special (Score:4, Insightful)
But what I find hard to believe is that we are in the exact center of such a region.
How exact do you think it has to be when we're talking about cosmic distances? Distances where being in the Milky Way vs Andromeda wouldn't make much difference in how the distant universe looked?
Parent
Re:Being special (Score:5, Insightful)
We need not be at the exact center. Closer to the center than to the edge would probably suffice.
Nor does ours need to be the only bubble: there could be billions of them. Thus we need not be unique: just not quite average (but then, being perfectly average would itself be unlikely).
Parent
Re:Being special (Score:5, Interesting)
I think we really need to restructure our underlying philosophy of what existence is. I've been chewing on this concept for years:
This "universe" isn't infinite. It's a 4 dimensional object, with a large but quantifiable amount of mass/energy, and this mass/energy has permutations across x, y, z and t. You see a 3 dimensional object with dimensions x, y, z moving through t, but observed from outside the t dimension, it's a 4 dimensional object.
The big bang, the singularity, is significant because at the moment that the mass/energy of the universe is in the singular state, it is identical to all the other universes. It is at this point that it "connects" to all the other universes, like petals connecting together to make a flower.
Questions of religion, spirituality and what it means to be human start getting in your way once you start looking at things this way. Am I an aspect of this object that is my universe, or am I some sort of traveler within this object that is a universe?
I think there's a good possibility that the missing matter and forces we hypothesize to be acting upon our universe are actually other universes influencing our own, like petals on a flower bumping into each other. And, assuming that we are "souls traveling within the universe" as opposed to "4 dimensional objects that are aspects of the universe", it isn't outside the bounds of reason to imagine that we might one day be able to map the shape of these universes and achieve "time travel" by moving to other universes.
I expect that we will eventually find the concept of the "infinite universe" to be a false path, and that we will achieve great breakthroughs when we find a framework that doesn't rely upon its existence.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I expect that we will eventually find the concept of the "infinite universe" to be a false path, and that we will achieve great breakthroughs when we find a framework that doesn't rely upon its existence.
Already happened. Our description of the laws of physics is local in nature and doesn't depend on the extent of the universe.
Re:Being special (Score:5, Informative)
This is no harder than believing in dark matter and dark energy, and it's before breakfast
"Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so". -The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Parent
Re:Being special (Score:4, Informative)
We don't necessarily have to be at or near the center of such a bubble, here's the conditions we might require:
1. We would have to somewhere be in a bubble that is much less dense than the actual average for the universe,
2. that bubble would have to be pretty uniformly less dense for the 12 Billion light year radius around us. It doesn't have to be exactly uniform, in fact one reason we might be able to detect it is if it isn't. The bubble doesn't have to be spherical, overall, or uniformly dense, overall, and the nature of the edge, where it becomes more like the rest of the universe is, is allowed some variation as well.
(In fact, from what the original paper says so far, the center of the bubble could still be even less dense than our part, just so those lower density regions were more than the observable length away.)
(If this hypothesis develops into a full fledged theory, we would probably be able at a minimum to confirm or reject the existence of even lower density regions, predict how thick the edges of the bubble are, and write an equation that describes how the density would go up, as hypothetically measured at different points in the edge.).
3. The bubble would have to be pretty big, bigger than the time it takes light to cross the entire part of the universe we can see. Since we estimate the universe is about 12 Billion years old, the edges of the bubble must be more than that number of light years away from our POV. But, we don't have to be equally near all edges.
(We could still possibly see some effects from what is now farther away, because we can observe things such as the cosmic microwave background, that preserve data from the very early times when things were much closer together. We could also see the indirect effects of gravity on things we can see directly in the visible, Gamma or UV ranges).
4. We would have to be near enough to an edge in at least one direction that we could see the effects of those hypothetical average density regions that lie farther than 12 Billion light years away. That way, we may never be able to see them directly, but we can infer them from the parts we can see, so this becomes testable. So if the bubble is much bigger than 24 billion light years across, we must not be too near the center. The bigger the bubble is, the farther out from the center we would have to be to detect something, but that's still a pretty general requirement that we be somewhere in a pretty big volume, not really something improbable or requiring a particularly privledged viewpoint. Our view would be unusual, but not unique.
5. Near enough in point 4 depends on how swiftly the edge of the bubble changes to a more average density, and just what the average is, among other factors. Again, actually coming up with some more specific numbers is what will happen if this hypothesis gets developed into a more established theory. The researchers will calculate some combinations of overall size, rate of change at the edges, and density for the larger universe, and see if there are combinations that predict something we can observe to test them, while throwing out combinations that lead to conclusions contrary to what we can observe. Better yet, a lot of our existing observations can be used to swiftly develop this hypothesis - this is much more testable right now than, say, string theory.
Parent
Re:Being special (Score:4, Informative)
The lower bound on the size of the universe, based on the CMBR is 78billion light years, any smaller, and then light would have circumnavigated it since the big bang, and we would see multiple images in the CMBR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe [slashdot.org]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe [wikipedia.org] looked for (and found!) exactly that.
Now, exactly what the WMAP's findings mean... Well, physicists and cosmologists will probably argue about that for the next century. But as a scientifically-literate non-expert, I would say that an anisotropic CMB seems consistent with (though certainly doesn't require) the "bubble" theory mentioned in TF
We known this for a long time (Score:4, Informative)
Re:We known this for a long time (Score:4, Informative)
This is different bubble. The Local Bubble is rather local (tens of parsecs across) and we can easily see gas outside of it. The bubble in the story could be bigger than the visible Universe (gigaparsecs across) and thus can be fundamentally untestable. Plus, null results (that we can't see outside of this gigantic bubble) make it even more unlikely because over- and underdensities are progressively rarer as they get bigger.
Parent
Are we in some kind a time loop / time DILATION... (Score:3, Funny)
Are we in some kind a time loop / time DILATION FIELD. If we are we should use the ZPM powering it for other stuff.
I concur and have the following questions. (Score:4, Interesting)
I like this theory. My questions are, if our known universe is a bubble/globule of matter floating in a larger void...
Obvious Answer (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Sparse bubble more special than "normal" matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
As mentioned in the article:
One problem with the void idea, though, is that it negates a principle that has reined in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in the universe isn't special. ... "This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live in a special place,"
Hold on a second...
Current thinking is that 74 percent of the universe could be made up of this exotic dark energy, with another 21 percent being dark matter, and normal matter comprising the remaining 5 percent.
So, being part of the 5 percent of "normal" matter isn't living in a "special place"?
Re:Bubble? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Occam's Razor? (Score:5, Interesting)
My favorite alternative is that we need someone to do to Einstein what Einstein did to Newton; that just like Newton's laws are near-perfect and beautiful at reasonable speeds, maybe there's something that happens at cosmically grand distances, masses, or propagation delays for Gravity that we're going to have to be awfully clever to ever hope to reliably detect.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy both felt like big hacks to me.
But, I am by no means a scientist, just an interest layman who hasn't done enough reading.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Average" is Not Normal (Score:3, Insightful)
But the chance of being in a spot that is a perfect representation of the average is rather small. The chances of being in a spot of above-average density and a spot with below-average density may even be greater than being in an average spot. This is of course unless the spot is significantly below or above he average.
It's also possible that intelligence life is more likely to evolve in sparser areas. Dense areas may offer too much chaos for advanced life (multicellular) to take hold. Some speculate that d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll apply Occam's Razor [wikipedia.org] and ask which is more likely.
Quite frankly I find both solutions rather silly, they sound a little too much like deus ex machina to me. I suspect the truth is still out there and when we understand it will change our view of the universe. It's happened before, it will happen again.
Two thoughts come to mind:
1. Deus ex machina is a term that can be applied to anything which conforms to Clark's Law ("any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"). Any spacetime/matter phenomenon that can be understood has the possibility of being controlled and therefore to become a technology, therefore Clarke's Law can be applied.
2. "Willam of Ockham had a beard," which is to say he was not an authority in the field and the rule associated with his name fails. It is sufficientl
Re:Occam's Razor? (Score:5, Informative)
I thought it was for deciding between two or more competing theories. I didn't think it could be used to reject all theories. If you have two theories, one makes two assumptions, one makes just one, it's more likely to be the one that just makes one. While both may be wrong, you can't use Occam's razor to throw BOTH of them out.
Furthermore, you don't use it at all, or if you did, you forgot to tell us the outcome. You actually just say both sound like deus ex machina, are both silly, and we're not right yet. Didn't even mention any underlying assumptions. That's not Occam's razor, or even rational argumentation. You just have a gut instinct that they're both wrong.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You make very valid points and I agree with many of them. However, my point here is that there are two theories, one new, one less new, that IMHO make too many assumptions. The simpler solution is that we really don't understand the problem yet and that there is a more elegant solution waiting to be found. This is the unstated third choice. I should have made that more clear... I'm blaming the cold medication.
Is this a proper application of Occam's Razor? I'm really not sure I'd care. I'm not sure that even
Year of Hell (Score:3, Informative)
This is the two-parter you mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_Hell [wikipedia.org] :)
Re:Bubble? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Bubble? (Score:5, Funny)
Why does the first thing that comes to mind after reading just this headline, make me think of that one episode on Star Trek Voyager
Wow, our minds just totally work differently. I thought of J-Lo's ass.
Parent
Re:Bubble? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does the first thing that comes to mind after reading just this headline, make me think of that one episode on Star Trek Voyager
Because you are a nerd.
Parent