The Universe Is Made of Tiny Bubbles Containing Mini-Universes, Scientists Say (vice.com) 104
'Spacetime foam' might just be the wildest thing in the known universe, and we're just starting to understand it. From a report: A persistent cosmological puzzle has been troubling physicists since 1917: what is the universe made of? Complicating this already-mind-boggling question is the fact that our best theories conflict with our observations of the universe. Albert Einstein, according to scientific folklore, felt a unique responsibility for introducing this entire problem, reportedly referring to it as his "biggest blunder." Essentially, Einstein's novel theory of general relativity didn't hold up when used to describe the universe as a whole. General relativity described the "geometry" of spacetime as being a trampoline-like surface; planets are heavy bowling balls that distort the surface, creating curves. If a less heavy ball (like a marble) was placed near the bowling ball, it would roll along the surface just like the motion of planets in orbit. Thus, orbits are explained not by a gravitational "force" but by curvature in spacetime.
This proposal worked when considering small regions of spacetime. But when Einstein applied it to the entire universe, its predictions didn't fit. So, Einstein introduced the "cosmological constant," a fixed value that represents a kind of anti-gravity, anti-mass, and anti-energy, counteracting gravity's effects. But when scientists discovered that the universe was expanding rather than static, as Einstein had believed, the cosmological constant was set to zero and more or less ignored. After we learned that the universe's expansion is accelerating, however, scientists could no longer conveniently cancel out Einstein's anti-gravity suggestion. What was previously assumed to be empty space in the universe now had to be filled with huge amounts of mysterious anti-energy in order to explain observations of the universe's ever-quickening expansion. Even so, observations of the universe's expansion suggest that the energy is 60 to 120 orders of magnitude lower than what recent quantum field theory predicts.
What this means is that all of this extra energy is somehow missing when we look at the universe as a whole; either it's effectively hidden or very different in nature to the energy we do know about. Today, theoretical physicists are trying to reconcile these mysteries by examining the structure of so-called "spacetime" in the universe at the smallest possible scale, with surprising findings: spacetime might not be the trampoline-like plane scientists once envisioned -- it might be a foamy mess of bubbles all containing mini-universes living and dying inside our own.
This proposal worked when considering small regions of spacetime. But when Einstein applied it to the entire universe, its predictions didn't fit. So, Einstein introduced the "cosmological constant," a fixed value that represents a kind of anti-gravity, anti-mass, and anti-energy, counteracting gravity's effects. But when scientists discovered that the universe was expanding rather than static, as Einstein had believed, the cosmological constant was set to zero and more or less ignored. After we learned that the universe's expansion is accelerating, however, scientists could no longer conveniently cancel out Einstein's anti-gravity suggestion. What was previously assumed to be empty space in the universe now had to be filled with huge amounts of mysterious anti-energy in order to explain observations of the universe's ever-quickening expansion. Even so, observations of the universe's expansion suggest that the energy is 60 to 120 orders of magnitude lower than what recent quantum field theory predicts.
What this means is that all of this extra energy is somehow missing when we look at the universe as a whole; either it's effectively hidden or very different in nature to the energy we do know about. Today, theoretical physicists are trying to reconcile these mysteries by examining the structure of so-called "spacetime" in the universe at the smallest possible scale, with surprising findings: spacetime might not be the trampoline-like plane scientists once envisioned -- it might be a foamy mess of bubbles all containing mini-universes living and dying inside our own.
In B4 (Score:2, Insightful)
Turtles all the way down! [wikipedia.org]
Re:In B4 (Score:4, Funny)
I'm looking for a new car battery, I suppose a 'mini' universe might do the trick
Re: (Score:1)
Yip, foamy turtles:
1948 called, it wants its Steady State Theory back (Score:2, Insightful)
High brow physicists have been ridiculing Hoyle for the last 90 years, and now they're gonna swallow their pride, and admit that maybe he was onto something?
Or will they conveniently forget the 90 years of opprobrium which they gleefully dished out?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model [wikipedia.org]
90 = 70 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Somebody with mod points was too stupid to understand the point. Wonder what it's like to live inside that brain?
Re: (Score:2)
What... you were going for funny?
Re: (Score:1)
Was the turtles lady going for funny?
Re: (Score:3)
Seeing how 'Mocking' isn't an option, I might suggest Troll or Funny... your pick
My opponent's reasoning reminds me of the heathen, who, being asked on what the world stood, replied, "On a tortoise." But on what does the tortoise stand? "On another tortoise." With Mr. Barker, too, there are tortoises all the way down. (Vehement and vociferous applause.)
—"Second Evening: Remarks of Rev. Dr. Berg"
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that "Turtles all the way down is silly", and at the same time, saying that "bubbles all the way down is not silly"? I'm honestly asking. Because the point of the "turtles all the way down" has to do with the fact that whatever is above, so is below, which is also what the scientists are saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh...
In the context of the original speaker, Rev. Dr. Berg, he is mocking the "uneducated heathens" for accepting a cultural belief that the world is flat and sits on the back of two elephants, which themselves stand on the back of a giant tortoise. This begs the question, "what does the tortoise stand on", which is mocklingly answered with turtles all the way down.
There is no attempt in Rev Dr Berg to rationalize or include the "heathen" ideas into their own Newtonian world views where gravity and the id
Re: (Score:2)
re: Turtles vs Bubbles and the more modern us of "Turtles all the way down", it really stands as a label for "something outside of our current frame of reference is happening here".
I don't agree. As it stands today, it literally stands for the microcosm being structured the same as the macrocosm. The fact that scientists are finally coming to reason it out, is what this article is about. So it's saying that "something outside of our current frame of reference, doesn't exist", which is why it's a good discovery.
Re: (Score:1)
The microcosm is not structured the same as the macrocosm, there is an abundance of evidence for this.
Re: (Score:2)
My friend...
Microcosm - noun: A community, place, or situation regarded as encapsulating in miniature the characteristic qualities or features of something much larger.
Macrocosm - noun: The whole of a complex structure, especially the world or the universe, contrasted with a small or representative part of it.
This from wikipedia...
The philosophy was conceptualized by Pythagoras, who saw the cosmos and the body as a harmonious unity. The idea was re-articulated about a century later by Plato, and again durin
Re: (Score:2)
Mock Turtles are always funny.
And delicious.
Oh Wow! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They got lost in the transition from one matter time state to another. So actual quantum particles, not cluster of them as we relate to them, quantum photonic particles infinite small and infinitely fast, versus cluster of quantum photonic particles, photons that now express mass and are now slower than gravity, due to their interaction with graviton quantum particles. That is only relative to our normal state particles, of course relative to other quantum particles they are not infinite small and infinitel
Re: (Score:2)
I really, really hate titles like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a minority opinion. Most people working in cosmology and high-energy physics think of these kinds theories as cute or even interesting outcomes of the math, but to call them reality is a bridge way too far.
The title implies that many scientists take this stuff seriously. It just isn't so. These kinds of claims are not falsifiable, so to even call them science is a stretch. Interesting mathematical gymnastics, yes, but not science.. Extraordinary claims and all that.
For one, this is a VICE article, and for two, the physicists quoted are theorists.
A better title would be "Some scientists say that the universe being made of tiny bubbles including other universes is consistent with our current mathematical models of the early universe". But that wouldn't be snappy, would it?
Re:I really, really hate titles like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Vice.com - not exactly a hotbed of respected science journalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking, physicists love these kinds of speculations, but they also recognize a hypothesis/theory that is not falsifiable is not (yet?) science.
That said, it is important to not cut short speculations too soon, as perhaps science can be found in them some day.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's not falsifiable then it isn't a hypothesis. A hypothesis that has survived falsification attempts is a theory.
I'd argue that the words "model" and "proposed mechanism" tend to better describe these kinds of unstructured ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
An even better word is "wankery".
Just like the idea of a multiverse, or the idea that everything is on a membrane and we just see a projection of it (a projection onto what, you shitlords?), or that time is cyclical, etc. etc.
It's just completely made up wankery with no evidence or reason beyond "our current, incomplete, and incorrect model may allow for it".
Re: (Score:2)
There is no empirical distinction between, say, the Copenhagen and Everett Interpretations of QM.
I can presume what your rabid rejection of a multiverse -really- is motivated by, but be clear, "non-multiverse" is not the scientific default. They are scientifically equivalent, which is why both stand as Interpretations. Your disdain is in no way backed by anything in science. It is your personal bias.
Re: (Score:2)
When you remove empiricism from science what you got is not particularly useful to anyone. The idea of a multiverse is entirely speculative. There is zero data to back up any such extravagant theory. We may not have any convincing interpretation of aspects of quantum mechanics. We just know that the math works. I don't even consider the many worlds interpretation of QM to be science fiction. It is not plausible enough. It is pure fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
(a projection onto what, you shitlords?)
Cartesian coordinates, dipstick.
Re: (Score:2)
But let's go to the source on falsifiability:
"Popper [wikipedia.org] invented the notion of metaphysical research programs to name such unfalsifiable ideas that guide the search for a new theory."
Re: (Score:2)
I do like "model", but I am satisfied "hypothesis" is not wrong. Only under certain contexts is a hypothesis expected to be testable. A reasonable sounding hypothesis proposed by a working scientist is not no longer a hypothesis because it is too too hard to figure out how to test it.
IMHO what is important to step away from "theory", as that is much abused.
Re: (Score:2)
Your mention of a 'working scientists' makes me wonder if you are a millennial. Such distinctions are so much more important to younger people who are a lot more influenced by arguments from authority. I think a distinction should be made between untestable because we don't currently have the technology and untestable because there is no conceivable way to do so. A hypothesis about a magic fairy world that is undetectable by us in any way has no place in science whatsoever regardless of whether the person w
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am not even close to a millennial. I am just adept enough at choosing current language, I suppose, at least some of the time. I also work in Silicon Valley, where people with a degree in a field of science but do engineering day to day is pretty common.
IMNSHO policing the word "hypothesis" in not useful in the context of today's world, because "theory" is so greatly abused. Hypothesis at least implies it is an idea that requires further examination and/or investigation before being taken very serio
Re: (Score:2)
A hypothesis doesn't rise to the level of a theory just because it has survived falsification attempts. A hypothesis is a result of a theory. If that hypothesis can then be (hopefully) shown to be true or false, that then implies whether the theory may be true or false.
Re: (Score:2)
I have not come across this definition before, but I'd be curious to read any references you provide.
Although I provisionally stand by what I said, I will however admit to my definition being an attempt at maximizing pithiness, hopefully not at the loss of too much detail. These snippets from Wikipedia don't seem to be attributed to any source, but I find them to be elaborations of what I tried to get across:
Hypothesis#Uses [wikipedia.org]
Or you could go the other way (Score:4, Funny)
A better title would be "Some scientists say that the universe being made of tiny bubbles...
Since it's Vice, they really should have just gone all-out and titled it "he Universe Is Made of Tiny Bubbles Containing Mini-Universes in Which Most Drugs are Probably Legal"
Re: (Score:1)
You mean California?
Re: (Score:2)
This is a minority opinion.... A better title would be "Some scientists say that the universe being made of tiny bubbles including other universes is consistent with our current mathematical models of the early universe". But that wouldn't be snappy, would it?
Or, possibly, "one scientist suggests that possibly the universe might be made of..."
Scientists shout out to Don Ho! (Score:1)
Re:Scientists shout out to Don Ho! (Score:4, Informative)
Theories are not necessarily claims. When one is trying to figure out how something works, they study the phenomenon, and propose possible models of the mechanism(s) behind it. Then groups test the candidate theories to see which best fit observations. Science 101; I don't see anything sinister. Cosmology is inherently speculative because we can't see everything that is and was, only their indirect traces.
Re: (Score:2)
Then groups test the candidate theories to see which best fit observations.
And if they skip this part? Is it still science?
Re: (Score:1)
Are you claiming they are doing that in this case? I would note that sometimes one has to wait for technology and exploration to progress in order to better test a theory. The hypotheses may "pile up" for a while until new ways of testing or new observations come along.
You could make an economic case that if too many hypotheses are piling up in a given area that the theorists should perhaps focus on other scientific mysteries that have better data on hand. But
Re: (Score:2)
What you're describing are hypotheses, not theories.
Perhaps this helps (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's an explanation that also considers how differing scales produce different effects in the time-space continum:
It's all about time [aardvark.co.nz]
Disect, destroy and dismantle at your leisure.
Whaddya mean THE universe? (Score:1)
foamy mess of bubbles
So, like, we're inside of dog drool?
Re: (Score:2)
foamy mess of bubbles
So, like, we're inside of dog drool?
Worse than that. Each of those tiny bubbles is, in reality, the same unimaginable size as our own Universe. It only seems small because we can only detect the tip of it.
So, we -are- the dog drool!!!
Re: (Score:2)
So it is turtles all down the way?
Re: (Score:2)
No, no.. It's frog spawn, coughed up by a turtle.
I thought everyone knew this already.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no.. It's frog spawn, coughed up by a turtle.
I thought everyone knew this already.
Naw, my Engineering classes never got that far...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's a dog eat dog world.
Thought experiment courtesy Everett... and Thomas (Score:2)
--Thomas 11
Other questions are raised (Score:2)
Let us assume this explanation is plausible. Or even correct. Does that mean our universe is a bubble in someone else's spacetime foam? Is the Big Bang simply our universe being created from the turmoil of this foam, and our subsequent demise the "popping" of our bubble?
No one has ever explained what our universe is expanding into so this idea at least provides a possible explanation, though of course doesn't answer what the universe our universe exists in sits in.
Re: (Score:2)
No one has ever explained what our universe is expanding into
The universe isn't expanding into anything. The distance between galaxies gets larger and thus the space between things grows, but the universe itself is infinite. One way to think about it, in a rough kind of setup, is imagine you and a friend are on conveyors that are infinitely long. You stand on one going in one direction and your friend stands on a conveyor going the opposite direction. The distance between you two grows but you aren't moving "into" anything that isn't already there since the conve
Re: (Score:2)
but the universe itself is infinite.
Which is exactly my point. Infinite to what? You cannot have an infinite something. If the distance between galaxies is expanding, then in a universe with an "edge" (link a balloon), the galaxies would eventually reach that edge.
However, if you say there is no edge to the universe and that galaxies keep expanding the distance between themselves, that does not explain how the universe can be infinite in all directions and galaxies never reach the edge.
Re: (Score:2)
Think in terms of the rational numbers. Between any two rationals there are more rationals. Choose a depth and call the numbers between two numbers the distance. You can go to further depths and increase the distance but you don't get any closer to the "edge" of the rationals.
Put more quickly, just because you cannot imagine it, that does not make it impossible.
Are they talking about the universe or ... (Score:2)
Or, like the name says, there's just one. (Score:2)
"Universe" - lit. "The one everything".
Everything -- it encompases all that ever was, all that is, and all that ever will be, or even might be, or will in fact never be.... that is what the universe is.
There is only one of them. The only way you can have more than one would be to change the definition of "everything".
I find it amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That is actually the correct way to consider all possibilities. Logic is not binary (true/false). It is trinary. Something can be true, false, or unknown/cannot be determined. What exists inside a black hole? According to all the theories we have about gravity and space-time, it's impossible for us to ever answer this question. But even the most skep
Re:I find it amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
A more balanced methodology would be to assume everything is unknown until proven true (or proven false, although that's a lot harder to do)
This is exactly how science works. We don't know if a hypothesis is true or not until it has been tested against observation. Anything unproven is simply unknown. Science does not assume that everything is false until proven to be true.
And there are lots of things which might be true but aren't practically provable via the scientific method.
Unfortunately if they are unprovable by science then the answers are unknowable by humans. Questions about an edge to the universe or what is outside the observable universe or inside the event horizon of a black hole and many other things are simply forever unknowable to us.
So they're familiar and comfortable with the concept of reaching a conclusion based on the preponderance of the evidence, rather than the absolute proof that scientists seek.
I can state quite confidently that not a single human being believes in a god or any supernatural and unknowable entity because of a preponderance of evidence. Religious people believe in their supernatural entities for emotional reasons and because childhood brainwashing is fiendishly effective and can even stick with people who are rational and logical in other areas.
Luckily religion is dying out now I think due to the internet. Generations raised on the internet have had a sort of antidote or antivenom to all of the religious bollocks their parents try to brainwash them with. You no longer have to be quite as independent a thinker to come to the conclusion that whatever god your parents believe in is entirely imaginary. A complete work of fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything starts with articles of faith, including science and religion, even if science calls them axioms or laws.
Science does not assume everything is false until proven true. It's usually much easier to prove something false if it is false than to prove something true if it is true.
And not all religious people reject change or challenges to their understanding of religion and god. You can have religious faith based on evidence, but religion tends to deal with
Re:I find it amusing (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not hypocracy. You are failing to understand the difference between scientific belief and religious belief (aka "faith") and are treating them as if they are the same. They are not.
Saying something is mathematically consistent with (some) observed results is different from saying it has been proven, and is different from saying that the scientist "believes" it. In fact, in science (as opposed to mathematics), nothing is proven: different theories are supported by different amounts of evidence, and that's all. Some theories (e.g. gravitation, plate tectonics, the germ theory of disease, quantum mechanics, conservation of momentum, evolution) are supported by a LOT of evidence, and thus hard to overturn, while for others (e.g. the theory described in this article), the evidence is interesting but scant at the moment, and research will be required to determine if more can be found, or if contradicting evidence is instead found, or if another theory explains the existing evidence better. Real working scientists know this, and generally report their findings in very careful language expressing the degree of certainty or uncertainty that they have. For a scientist to "believe" something on a personal level, there must generally be a lot of evidence in favor of it, and little apparently contradicting evidence, since ultimately it is the evidence which is important, not the belief. And such scientific beliefs can be overturned if more evidence arrives that contradicts them.
Reporters in the popular press who are reporting on scientific results, however, are typically not inclined to be so careful, since their understanding is typically limited, and also because wild claims and bold headlines sell newspapers and magazines, and ultimately provide paychecks for reporters. As such, it is a mistake to infer from the fact that a popular press reporter breathlessly declares "Scientists believe X" that those scientists do indeed hold a belief in X with the same kind of religious conviction that, for instance, a Christian is typically encouraged to believe that the events described in the Bible are true and accurate.
It is likewise a mistake to assume that because a scientist is advancing a theory or working on gathering evidence for a theory that the scientist "believes" it. Usually, the situation is more that the scientist believes that there is enough evidence in support of the theory that it is interesting to pursue, to see if the theory can be made to explain more observed facts that other, competing theories. That theory may (and probably will) eventually later be supplanted by yet other, newer theories that explain even more evidence, and scientists understand this and expect it (this is, after all, fundamental to the scientific method). That's not remotely the same as belief in the religious sense, in which a person declares permanent, immutable belief in a particular set of explanations for the universe and things in it, and is unwilling to change that belief, even in the face of new evidence (and instead ignores or avoids contradicting evidence in favor of the existing belief). Unwavering belief of that sort would make you very good at religion, but very bad at science.
Re: (Score:1)
ROTFPIMPLMAO
You appear to have had a stroke, which explains a lot of the nonsense you post. I hope you will get better.
Re: I find it amusing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"scientific evidence" ROTFPIMPLMAO
Re: (Score:3)
I find your argument persuasive. Could you please call the GP some names, that would really make your case.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize, don't you, that the bible isn't one work, but many different writings by different authors at different times for different purposes?
Re: I find it amusing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe the universe is a simulation, then you already believe in a creator.
If you believe there is a creator, and also that the creator has human psychology, human character flaws, and contradictory properties, then you're probably using a metaphor and taking it too far.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you please stop labeling "theorists" as "scientists"? Those two labels mean very different things.
If you quit it, in exchange, we will stop labeling "the religious" as "pedophiles"
Deal?
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, they are merely creating theories which one day may be tested. A big problem in physics is to determine WHAT theory to test next. Testing is expensive, just look at the LHC. So the theorists build new theories too see what are their consequences. If they reach a contradiction, they can chuck the theory. If not, it is possible as far as they know. They may know more tomorrow.
Put another way, one doesn't just conjure up an experiment because it looks like a fun thing to do. Either it is testing a th
Re: (Score:2)
"their belief about how we are living in computer simulations and tiny universes controlled by others with impunity and not so much as a scintilla of proof"
The difference is that they do so on the current step of a path of following evidence and their ideas are falsifiable. Some scientists lose track of what science is, science is the quest for models which accurately predict reality using a method which produces ever more accurate tools for doing so. Science pursues explaining as much as possible with as l
Rubbish. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And here you are, leading by example.
Re: (Score:2)
It that why we're here together?
Academia Is Full Of Idiots Containing Bullshit (Score:1)
Academia Is Full Of Idiots Containing Bullshit, Slashdotter Says
Can't we put a black list on idiot publishers? (Score:1)
Janus model from Jean-Pierre Petit (Score:1)
As I repeat probably once a year in here, the Janus model from Jean-Pierre Petit really well explains it. Science lag a lot when huge discoveries are made.
http://jp-petit.org/ [jp-petit.org]
Or search Janus model on youtube.
Re: (Score:1)
Men In Black (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Men in Black (I) featured a miniature universe, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did not remember the cat, only the alien in the end playing with it.
Black holes? (Score:2)
Summary (and therefore the article) has mistake. (Score:2)
Einstein introduced the Cosmological Constant, because at the time that he formulated GR, the universe was thought to be static, and he could not get a static universe out of his equations without the constant.
Of course, the universe is NOT static, and as such, the constant was unnecessary (at the time).
And might not ... (Score:2)
... it might be a foamy mess of bubbles all containing mini-universes living and dying inside our own.
Kinda negates the headline:
The Universe Is Made of Tiny Bubbles Containing Mini-Universes, Scientists Say
Also scientists: Whoaaaaaaa (Score:2)
This sounds like the sort of thing that half-baked college freshmen come up with while drugged out of their mind [youtube.com] one night.
"Constants" are just fudge factors (Score:2)
You don't say. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And then you learned science?
The universe is expanding? (Score:2)
I guess with everything that's been going on lately I wouldn't want to be anywhere near us either.
Are You Old Enough to get It? (Score:2)
Lawrence Welk would be proud.
Timeline (Score:2)
Question (Score:2)
Don Ho (Score:1)
Would have something to sing about this...........
I am glad to see VICE sticks to their public (Score:2)