I'm sure this has been asked before, but: Universes colliding with each other

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mustang19
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of universes potentially colliding with each other, exploring ideas related to cosmology, the nature of dark energy, and the implications of multiple universes or Hubble volumes. Participants express various hypotheses and questions regarding the interactions between these entities, their definitions, and the speculative nature of such concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if multiple universes exist, they could collide or interact in ways similar to physical objects, such as "jelly balls." Others challenge this notion, arguing that universes are not embedded in a higher-dimensional space but are themselves the fabric of space.
  • A participant questions whether dark energy from one universe could exert force on another, suggesting that this could affect the inflation of the universes involved.
  • Another participant emphasizes the difficulty of defining "force" without a framework of space-time, asserting that the Hubble volume is a part of our universe and its boundaries are not distinct entities.
  • There is a discussion about the speculative nature of multiverse theories, with some participants asserting that these theories lack evidence and are not widely accepted in mainstream science.
  • One participant expresses confusion about dark energy, questioning its nature and whether it has a particle-like quality similar to light.
  • Another participant clarifies that the term "universes" should not be used to refer to parts of our universe, suggesting that this leads to misunderstandings about their nature.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of universes or the implications of their potential interactions. There are competing views regarding the existence of multiple universes, the definition of dark energy, and the validity of speculative concepts in cosmology.

Contextual Notes

Some claims are based on speculative ideas without empirical evidence, and participants express varying levels of understanding regarding fundamental concepts in cosmology. The discussion reflects a mix of technical reasoning and conceptual exploration, with some participants seeking clarification on basic physics principles.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals curious about cosmology, the nature of dark energy, and the theoretical implications of multiverse concepts, as well as those seeking to understand the boundaries of speculative scientific discourse.

mustang19
Messages
75
Reaction score
4
Forgive me for not being a professional cosmologist, but can't the universe collide with another universe? If similar instances of the universe's Hubble volume occur every so often, won't they eventually run up against each other and push each other around like giant jelly balls?

And can't our universe even get sandwiched between two other such universes, compressing ours down to a singularity?

I know I make no sense, but thanks for your patience.
 
Space news on Phys.org
mustang19 said:
Forgive me for not being a professional cosmologist, but can't the universe collide with another universe? If similar instances of the universe's Hubble volume occur every so often, won't they eventually run up against each other and push each other around like giant jelly balls?

And can't our universe even get sandwiched between two other such universes, compressing ours down to a singularity?

I know I make no sense, but thanks for your patience.

Today anything outside our Universe is completely unknown, so who knows?
 
Universes (if there is more than 1) are not like balls in a 3- or 4-dimensional environment which could collide. They are not embedded in some space. They are space (with objects inside).
 
Today anything outside our Universe is completely unknown, so who knows?

As good an answer as any.

Universes (if there is more than 1) are not like balls in a 3- or 4-dimensional environment which could collide. They are not embedded in some space. They are space (with objects inside).

I see. But they can still exert force against each others' volumes, I think. Doesn't the dark energy in one Hubble volume compress or act against the dark energy in the ones it collides with, or do both volumes keep on inflating regardless?
 
How do you define "force" without space(time)?

The Hubble volume is a part of our universe, and its "boundary" is not different from anything else in the universe (its position is just the result of a mathematical calculation). That is a completely different thing.
 
mfb said:
How do you define "force" without space(time)?

The Hubble volume is a part of our universe, and its "boundary" is not different from anything else in the universe (its position is just the result of a mathematical calculation). That is a completely different thing.

Alright, alright, I get it now.

Say you have three universes sitting in a row, with Universe A on the left and Universe C on the right, with universe B in the middle. As A and C expand and "sandwich" B, pressing against it on both sides, will the dark energy in A and C exert any force against the dark energy in B? Will this slow B's inflation at all?
 
mustang19 said:
Alright, alright, I get it now.

Say you have three universes sitting in a row, with Universe A on the left and Universe C on the right, with universe B in the middle. As A and C expand and "sandwich" B, pressing against it on both sides, will the dark energy in A and C exert any force against the dark energy in B? Will this slow B's inflation at all?

No, clearly you DON'T get it. Reread post #3
 
phinds said:
No, clearly you DON'T get it. Reread post #3

Well, going by that post, I'm left with the impression that the universes would more or less merge, with negligible compression between them. I appreciate the answers to my rather crude questions.
 
Last edited:
First, "universe" === "all there is" and it is unlikely that there is more than one.

There ARE "multiverse" theories that postulate more than one "all there is", but first, they have ZERO evidence and are highly speculative, and second, even they do not say there is any connection of any kind among the different ones.

You should read the forum rules that prohibit personal theories (that is, ones that have no apparent basis in fact). This is a forum for mainstream science and you are just making up speculative concepts.

There are lots of forums on the internet where you can let your imagination run wild, but this is not one of them.
 
  • #10
phinds said:
First, "universe" === "all there is" and it is unlikely that there is more than one.

There ARE "multiverse" theories that postulate more than one "all there is", but first, they have ZERO evidence and are highly speculative, and second, even they do not say there is any connection of any kind among the different ones.

You should read the forum rules that prohibit personal theories (that is, ones that have no apparent basis in fact). This is a forum for mainstream science and you are just making up speculative concepts.

There are lots of forums on the internet where you can let your imagination run wild, but this is not one of them.

You seem like you're speaking from experience. Well, again, thanks for the response. I'll try to stick to solid evidence from now on while I'm here.
 
  • #11
mustang19 said:
You seem like you're speaking from experience. Well, again, thanks for the response. I'll try to stick to solid evidence from now on while I'm here.

I should add that multiverse theories are not banned at all on this forum. Despite evidence, they are a valid topic for mainstream (well, sort of) science. My point on your speculation was about your concept that "universes" somehow occupy the same space-time continuum without being part of the same universe. Actually, that isn't really speculative so much as just nonsensical.

It IS good to let your imagination run, and to "think outside the box". BUT ... on this forum, you are required to first know what's in the box, or to ask questions about what's in the box, not speculate about what's outside the box without any basis in actual physics.

It's a great forum, really.
 
  • #12
phinds said:
I should add that multiverse theories are not banned at all on this forum. Despite evidence, they are a valid topic for mainstream (well, sort of) science. My point on your speculation was about your concept that "universes" somehow occupy the same space-time continuum without being part of the same universe. Actually, that isn't really speculative so much as just nonsensical.

It IS good to let your imagination run, and to "think outside the box". BUT ... on this forum, you are required to first know what's in the box, or to ask questions about what's in the box, not speculate about what's outside the box without any basis in actual physics.

It's a great forum, really.

By "universes" I meant something along the lines of "identical Hubble volumes within the same universe", but I guess the answer is the same.

Apologies if there are stacks of threads on this, but one thing I never understood is what dark energy was. I assume it's something like light, which transfers energy through space. Light is made up of photons, so I'm not sure if dark energy has a similar hypothetical particle which transmits and mediates it, or if it is even supposed to have a particle nature.

It's just a question. If this isn't a place for asking questions about Physics 101 (or would it be 103?), I understand completely.
 
  • #13
By "universes" I meant something along the lines of "identical Hubble volumes within the same universe", but I guess the answer is the same.
Do not use "universes" then, please, if you refer to parts of our universe.
The Hubble volume is a mathematical result of some calculation about our (here: earth) current state in the universe. They "merge" or do not merge in the same way as "a sphere around Earth with radius 100km/s*t" and "a sphere around sun with radius 100km" would "merge". Just a mathematical thing.
 
  • #14
mustang19 said:
Apologies if there are stacks of threads on this, but one thing I never understood is what dark energy was.

There are, so do a forum search. Doing that is something you should get in the habbit of doing before asking basic quesions.
 
  • #15
mfb said:
Do not use "universes" then, please, if you refer to parts of our universe.
The Hubble volume is a mathematical result of some calculation about our (here: earth) current state in the universe. They "merge" or do not merge in the same way as "a sphere around Earth with radius 100km/s*t" and "a sphere around sun with radius 100km" would "merge". Just a mathematical thing.

Thanks for the clarification.

There are, so do a forum search. Doing that is something you should get in the habbit of doing before asking basic quesions.

Got it.
 
  • #16
mustang19 said:
Thanks for the clarification.



Got it.

Also, FIY, you would likely find it VERY informative to read the FAQ in the cosmology section
 
  • #17
Good stuff. Thanks again, phinds.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
12K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
8K
Replies
15
Views
42K