Michio Kaku, Parallel Universes, and Galactic EZ Bake Ovens

AI Thread Summary
Dr. Michio Kaku suggests that heating space to trillions of degrees Fahrenheit could potentially induce a Big Bang, raising questions about the scientific basis for this claim. There is a distinction between recreating conditions after the Big Bang and actually inducing one, which complicates the discussion. Some theories propose that such extreme conditions could lead to a spatial topology change, possibly resulting in a new universe. However, doubts arise regarding whether the known universe contains enough energy to achieve such temperatures, given the vastness of space. The conversation highlights the need for experimental support for Kaku's theories and the challenges of understanding cosmic phenomena.
Mr. Q
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
This is my first post on this forum, I apologize in advance if I placed this in the wrong location.

My question is this:

I'm watching the Science Channel tonight, and on an episode of Sci Fi Science, Dr. Michio Kaku suggests that if you heat space up to say, a couple trillion degrees Fahrenheit, you could potentially induce a Big Bang.

Why might this happen, and what/where is the science that supports it?
 
Space news on Phys.org
I don't know, but there is a big difference between heating something to recreate the conditions immediately after the big bang, and actually "inducing a big bang". Are you sure which of these he was referring to?

Maybe he is referring to theories that allow for a spatial topology change, sort of like a separate universe splitting off from the one we live in. Even if that was possible isn't that temperature a bit low? Btw, Kaku has a tendency to speak about theories without any experimental jsupport as if they were fact.

EDIT: I think this should be in the "Beyond the Standard Model" section.

Torquil
 
Last edited:
Being myself a fan of Michio Kaku I can definitely say that I find a lot of what he presents edifying and interesting. But in response to your question, I would pose another one: Is there enough energy in the known universe (assuming the known universe to mean a finite plane) to heat all of space to such temperatures? I kind of doubt it due to the vastness of space and the intervals between massive particles in deep space.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Back
Top