what is this theory officially called, the pockets of space/time inside a "field" theory, i have read it somewhere before

its called the bubble universe theory, its part of the inflation theory (which i think is the best theory out right now, theres like no flaws)

upping

The universe is one and unique, and cyclic like everything else. This is due to its fractal
like structure. You may try to see what this link is about

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_10_eusa.htm

i think that it is cyclic but theres not only one, check the inflation theory and it make sense, i am not saying that it is certainly true but i think it is a good possibility that there are more quasi-verses

this the theory i am talking about

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-MN-0...ing_bubble.html

Thanks for the link, Plat. The author points out that light cannot travel between the bubbles but is silent about gravitational coupling between them. Although I think the concept is of limited usefullness, it may have value in pointing to the source of dark matter and dark energy.



StarLab: Was it separate universes that came together or was it branes (surfacelike manifestations in hyperdimensional space) consisting of mutually exclusive sets of hyperdimensions that bumped into each other resulting in the "precipitating out" of our spacetime? The various vibration modes of our spacetime and the quantization of each generate each manifestation of energy.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

Universe and brane are interchangeable, specifically in this scenario. Yes, two branes did come together, but we can consider them different universes also since they obviously obeyed different physical laws.

The Ekpyrotic model could be an explanation for the Big Bang appearing out of nothing but it then begs the question of how the universe they exist in began. But regardless of how or when the BB occurred we now have the only universe we can know anything about. Personally I hope it's a cyclical universe because if it's not then eventually it'll either just keep getting bigger and eventually sputter out and die, leaving just photons that get cooler and cooler, or it'll collapse in a Crunch and disappear. Either way it seems a bit of a waste.

If it's cyclical then one thing's for certain. All physical laws survive the Crunch to get passed on to the next cycle. If it's cyclical then it's a fair bet that we're not part of the very first Big Bang. This means that at the very least gravity had to be exactly the same in previous universes because even the slightest difference would put an end to the cycles. As for what can cause it to bounce back out of the Crunch, my guess is that once it reaches the Planck era time reverses giving the appearance of a Big Bang but quantum fluctuations then come into play so that even though matter appears again it won't reform back into the same stars etc we have now...it's a new universe with the same laws running it and life will develop once again.

You see, I do not like that Cyclical theory because the entire objective of life is wasted; unless a species can traverse the bounds of this universe (and this might not because a cyclical universe implies an impermeable membrane), then the universe is all for nothing. That's why I like the Ekpyrotic Model better; and, in this model, if we look far back enough with the correct equipment, we may see the other universes where/when they did not collide.

"As above, so below".

If subatomic particles have the ability to appear and disappear, why not our universe, or any other, for that matter?

Cycled or recycled, things appear to go round and round.

__________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov

The difference between a subatomic particle and a universe is the time you'd have to wait for the latter to disappear or reappear.

Subatomic particles can be thought of as flickering in and out of existence but for an entire universe to do this, all of the particles that it's made up of would have to disappear and reappear simultaneously. I guess this has a finite possibility but you'd have to wait a very, very, very long time.

The odds are slightly higher for a subset of the universe but still probably more than the lifetime of the universe...

__________________
Spike
:)

i agree with corkft

The problem with comparing sub atomic particles with the universe is that sub atomic (virtual) particles don't just appear by themselves, they're always accompanied by it's anti particle and the more energetic they are the less time they can hang around (this is governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). So to think of the universe like this implies that there must have been an anti Big Bang. Not an impossibility as far as I know but it's probably better off in the Alternative Theories forum

I'm no brane surgeon, not even a diagnostician, but what little reading I've done sugest they are surface-like properties of hyper-dimensional geometries confined to those regions of our imagination well isolated from reality checks.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

1. I believe that the planet we live on is a particle or an Electron orbiting a nucleus, which is our Sun, making up an Atom part, of a Molecule.

2. I believe that our Sun and the other stars in our Galaxy make up a Molecule of a material that we may not yet know but of a material that is going through a burning process or a change of state of some kind.

3. I believe that this known or unknown material is a part of an existence, which is of the same makeup and type as our own Solar System and Galaxy, and that this same, ever increasing in size, cycle goes and grows on for infinity.

4. I believe that any material, that exists on our level, or any other level, and that can be induced with energy to enable it to change it’s state in some way, has the potential for it's Molecules, Atoms and Electrons to become Galaxies, Solar Systems and Planets just like ours and that this cycle in it's ever decreasing size goes on and shrinks for infinity.

5. I believe that this cyclical phenomenon does not only occur above us and beneath us but is continually occurring all around our, and every other, existence and Universe.

6. My logic for this is explained as follows :-


















From the End to the beginning


The Cyclical Universe

By
Roger Smith

22 Feb. 2002


In the passed I have always thought that thinking about the meaning of life and the meaning of everything was a depressing thought but as the years have gone by, turning it over in my mind, I have come to the conclusion that if I look at things as ongoing cyclically, keeping in mind the relativity of size and then try to look at the problems from an opposite point of view, it seems to work out as a reasonably satisfactory conclusion, for me, anyway. If you can understand that then you’re half was there. Bear with me and read on.
Let‘s take a look at a Butterfly. It is said that they only live for a day, but I’m willing to bet that the Butterfly does not realise how short its life is, compared to a human life, or how long its life is, compared to an amoeba, which I suspect, in some cases, may only be a few seconds. The Butterfly must have no idea about Houses, Furniture, Cars, Buses or most other things you could think of. One reason would be that in it’s relatively short life span it has not got the time to find out. On the other hand, I have no way of knowing how the Butterfly sees its place in the natural world.
If we imagine ourselves as having the same outlook as butterflies, the extent of our existence would be the Stars, the Planets and the Universe. What is beyond that is also beyond me, but I do have an imagination, and this is my way of explaining, to myself, THE MEANING OF LIFE.
At school, many years ago, our Science teacher was named Bill Curate. He taught us that a Molecule of anything was the smallest particle of any type of matter. He would sing out “ A Molecule is a tiny, tiny, tiny, ever so tiny, tiny, tiny, part of matter” and that a Molecule is the smallest part of matter that can be made up of different elements. Anything smaller than a Molecule is an Atom, which can only exist as a single base element. Each Atom is made up of a Nucleus and orbiting particles, very much like our Stars, Suns and Planets. These orbiting particles are called Electrons.
Now, if you think of it as that, then it must be logical to think that different Substances and Elements have different types of Molecules and Atoms with also different types of little Universes, all within the one Molecule. Let’s take a piece of Coal and a piece of Iron. They are both hard to the touch, you can’t eat them and they both have lots of similar properties but no way could you say that they are the same material and their make up of Electrons, Atoms and Molecules must be different in each case. Also logically, environment such as temperature change or a mechanical or electrical change may change the makeup of the Molecule and the Atom. Let us take a piece of Coal and set it alight. (Easier than setting light to a piece of Iron) It then stands to reason that its Molecules, and Atoms and therefore its Electrons go through a change as it heats up and burns up its energy. This is because although it starts off as a piece of coal with coal Molecules, it ends up as ash with presumably ash Molecules, a totally different material with different properties. If you were small enough to be able to live on one of those coal Electrons, the Energy, the relative heat and the relative length of time it would take to burn out, would be too enormous for us to contemplate. Rather like our Suns and Stars are to us.
Now, that’s something to think about, is it not? If, within one of these Atoms, a Solar System like ours did exist, with the Energy to run it, coming from the heating up of the Nucleus, in other words, a Sun, then the Eternity of that Solar System would be the length of time the heat lasted in that Atom, which, in our time as we are now, maybe lasts for years, weeks, days, minutes, seconds or even less.
Just suppose our Universe is a Molecule that exists in the middle of a gigantic explosion such as an H Bomb or in the middle of a small, ten-penny firework, explosion, or even in the middle of a burning piece of coal. What ever it was would not make any difference to us; any of these Molecule changing outcomes to us, would start with a very “BIG BANG”. (Does that ring a bell?) The length of time it takes for that Big Bang to explode, burn and then fizzle out would be the time it takes for that Eternity to start, live and finish. To someone or something that caused that explosion, set off that firework or lit that piece of coal, it may only take up a few minutes, seconds or even less time, of their or it’s existence in their or it’s time.
Let us look at it another way, and take an example of one of the millions of ways for something to burn or to obtain energy. You cause an explosion or set off a firework, induce an electrical current or even put another piece of coal on the fire. You may even induce some sort of energy into any sort of thing. Within that few seconds or minutes, hours or even milliseconds or whatever the time it takes for the burning or the burn up of that induced energy process, the changing state of that material, may have put an infinite amount of energy into an infinite amount of Molecules and Atoms creating an infinite amount of living Universes with an infinite amount of galaxies, stars, Solar Systems, planets, black holes and a host of millions and millions and millions of other things as well. Just maybe that out of these millions and millions of galaxies you have created, a number of them that are just like our own galaxy and of course, within these galaxies, there would be Stars, Suns, Solar Systems and Planets, just like ours, with just maybe people just like you and I, being born, living and dying through millions and millions of generations, taking only a few seconds, minutes, or hours of your own life time to do this. Some of these small people may also believe in some sort of God or higher existence and in this case, it could be said that you are that higher existence for starting it all off in the first place. But of course, without nature, you couldn’t have done it anyway.
Now, let us say that one of these little people sets off a firework or lights a fire with coal or ignites anything. They are then creating their own infinite amount of living Universes with an infinite amount of Suns and Stars and Planets and yes, even people, then they become the higher existence, just as we were a few seconds ago, and I suppose we still are for the next few seconds or minutes. The size of anything is always only relative.
This could mean, that there could be an infinite amount of existences above us, below us, not to mention either side of us and even all around us, all with their own infinite amount of higher, lower and parallel existences. Space is totally infinite in all directions.
So now we’ve worked all that out, is there any hope for any of us at all? Well, if you believe in this theory and look at it logically, the infinite amount of Molecule/Galaxies that are around us and go on for infinity, there must be, within these higher, lower and parallel existences, existences of every type that you could ever imagine. The fact that these higher, lower and parallel existences go on forever seems to prove this in itself. I can find no reason for it to come to a stop, or what would be beyond the stop, in any direction. By the law of averages, some will be a copy of our own existence and all that is happening to us now will be happening, an infinite amount of times, within the infinite number of higher existences, will be happening, an infinite amount of times within the infinite number of lower existences and also will be happening, an infinite amount of times within the infinite number of parallel existences. So we may have to do all this all over again an infinite amount of times in the future (If you can stand it.) as we may have done it an infinite amount of times in the passed and indeed it maybe happening an infinite amount of times, at this same time although we will never know of any of it.
Lets have a look at the time factor in all this. Have you noticed that as a general rule, the bigger things are the longer they last. There are always exceptions of course but take the example of an Amoeba, a Butterfly, Humans and an Elephant. In that order and in relative sizes, it seems to me, this could be true. The Amoeba living for seconds, minutes or hours, the Butterfly living for days or weeks, the Human living for decades or tens of decades and the Elephant living for decades and even hundreds of years. In this explanation, of course, all the examples are living things and they use up energy. I’m presuming that, the smaller a living thing is, the less energy it has at its disposal compared to the larger thing and therefore takes less time to use it up. It also rings true that, generally, the bigger a living thing is, the slower it is and more time is taken for it’s resource of energy to be burned up, which maybe another factor in the longevity of an existence. Take an example of the relationship between an Elephant and, lets say, a Tortoise. The Tortoise is much smaller than the Elephant but lives about the same length of time. This blows a hole in my last theory except that the Tortoise moves at a slower pace than an Elephant and presumably is more economical with the energy resource it has at its disposal. A Fly is much smaller than a Human and has a much shorter life expectancy compared to a Human life but the speed at which it is able to move compared to it’s size must be far in excess of that of a Human and it’s relative size. This could mean that the length of life is, not only determined by size, but also offset by a pre-determined amount of energy and the speed at which it is used up.
Let us now have a look at two things that do not seem to have a life force but are greatly different in size. In this example let’s use a Mountain and a Stone. A Mountain as large as Everest and a Stone that is small enough to be held in the palm of your hand. The difference in size would indicate by the size rule that the Mountain would last a lot longer than the stone but this would be true only if the same amount of erosive forces (Energy) applied to both was the same. With no other energy forces involved, I would expect the life of each of them to be the same. But if they were both subjected to the same amount forces, such as wind and rain, then I suspect the Stone would disappear before the Mountain. If however the Mountain had an immense force inside it, as a volcano has, then it could be possible that the Mountain, as a Mountain, could have a shorter lifespan than the Stone, which seems to have no energy inside it at all.
What I am trying to say is that the length of an existence maybe is determined not only by it’s size and it’s speed, but by it’s internal energy plus it’s imported energy minus it’s energy output. The size factor only comes into play when the energy factor is comparatively the same and you look at the time of an existence from the point of view of another existence.
As I’m writing this, I’m thinking, the reader of this must think, these are the ramblings of a madman, what a load of old rubbish. On the other hand, who’s to say that there is not a grain of truth in it? In a cyclical sense, think of something in the natural world that, in some way, is not rounded in at least in one dimension. Anything that is grown or formed naturally takes up a rounded shape in the end. If something gets broken and has a sharp edge, in time, with erosion even the edges get rounded. The Planets are round. The sun is round. Molecules (The building bricks of matter) are round. Daytime goes to night and then comes round to day again. Weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, and millenniums, they all come round, If time could be considered cyclical then surely size, with the help of energy, might come into the cyclical equation also.
Another law of nature, on the face of it, seems to be that when nature wants something to happen, then it makes sure it happens by producing so many possibilities, that, by the law of averages, one of those possibilities will provide nature with the one it wants. An example of this is that a plant has hundreds or thousands of seeds but only a small percentage of seeds become fully fledged flowers, other seeds do not even attempt to grow and a variation of others grow and stop at different stages of their growth. We, as Humans, look at the flower as being the end product of the seed and the only success is the growth of the full flower. Lets turn that law on it’s head and now say that to nature each stage of progression of the seed is, in it’s self, is a success and is an end product to be used for a variety of purposes. (Now that’s natural and we are talking about nature) Every one of these possibilities, however big, however small, however good and however bad, would be equal in the eyes of nature and each possibility is a success in itself. Lets look at it another way; maybe nature gives every possibility an equal chance, however good or bad a possibility maybe perceived by us. I believe that nature does not just pick on a possibility that it wants and then saturates the system with probabilities to get the one possibility that it wants. I believe that, to nature, every possibility has an equal preference, whatever stage of growth it is at and however long it lasts: across space time and size, nature goes through a process that causes every possibility that could ever happen, happen repeatedly and cyclically and infinitely. The fact that we are here now surrounded by the possibilities that we can see, does not mean that we cannot imagine all these other possibilities and does not mean that there are not possibilities that we cannot even imagine. We are a part of just one possibility and we are limited by the possibilities that we can see and can only imagine.
However outlandish a possibility is, however fanciful, however fantastic, however close to another possibility, however far from another possibility every single possibility that you can or cannot think of may happen time and time again. Your imagination is the only limitation. Some possibilities, repeating, may not happen in just one existence or even in one size level of existences but if you believe in all our surrounding existences and the infinite time factor involved then there is no reason not to believe that every possibility that could ever take place, does take place over and over again.
The last paragraph is my personal get-out for not believing in anything Supernatural, Superstitious, Heaven, Hell and anything Religious. As usual, I have blown a hole in my own prejudice as I have just stated that anything is possible and our imagination is our only limitation. Is that hypocrisy on my part or am I psychologically trying for a bit of insurance.
I think I might now be just babbling on but it’s now time to get to the point of all this conjecture. I believe that if scientists want to find out about the Stars and the Universe, as limited as they are to us, they should be actually looking at Molecules and Atoms. If scientists want to find out about Molecules and Atoms, they should be actually looking at the Solar System, Stars and the Universe. I wonder what element this Universe of ours could be. If it could be an element known to us maybe we should be looking at the Molecules and Atoms of that element to find out about our Universe.
The current theory is that space is curved. I understand that, to be, that if you were able to travel to the outskirts of the Universe, you would find it would be like moving inside a balloon with all that is within our Universe, floating within the balloon. You would eventually come to the outer curved skin which would be in the form of an impenetrable force, (being the similar type of force to our Gravity in that it would be pushing you in toward the centre of our balloon, the weakest part being in the middle, and the strongest force being at the perimeter, the opposite to the gravitational force we have here on Earth. The total force on the outer edge would be equal to the combined gravitational forces of all the things inside the Universe thus balancing the forces within the balloon, which would stop you getting to the outside, or anywhere near to the edge of the outside, of our balloon. If we look at our balloon now as being just one Molecule of a piece of matter then it stands to reason that all within the Molecule has to be locked in and balanced otherwise as soon as that skin or the force is penetrated or broken, an example being, a change of state of the material and therefore the Molecule by heat, chemical or mechanical reaction, then our molecule would sees to exist in the same form or even maybe sees to exist at all. If our Universe were a Molecule within a piece of matter, then all around our Molecule, there should be other Molecules of the same type exactly and the same type surrounding them also, as they are all building parts of the same type of material, and so on to make up the material of which these Molecules are the building blocks. I think that the Molecules in the same piece of matter must be identical to be able to make up that piece of matter. If that’s the case then all the things that are happening to us now and all the things that are happening in our Universe have more chance of happening in adjacent Molecules in exactly the same way, and in every respect, than within other further away Molecules and that’s only one example of types of parallel existences and that’s only on our level of existences.
In conclusion, at this time in my life, I feel comforted by the following theory of life after death. First of all I am unable to believe in the conventional stereotype of God. I prefer to think of it as Nature being the all-powerful force. This, I then think, takes in all or most of the opinions of all the religions and non-religions, every living state and every non-living state. This might seem a bit of a get out but I believe the fundamental and only principals of being good to each other and with no threat of punishment for doing normal and natural things and being tolerant and respectful of all other religions, people, animals and vegetation would be the principals of the only religion that I could follow.
My view on the afterlife is that when we die, it is not a possibility that there is definite infinite oblivion. Death is natural and nature does not deal in impossibilities. The fact that we are here now proves that this life is not an impossibility. When we die, I believe we go back to a state that we were in before we were born and lets face it we all survived that and all became born so why should it not happen, in a cyclical sense, again and again as it may have happened time and time before and also could be happening now, even at the same time within multiple other existences of our size and other size levels.
What I do think is that maybe you cannot be born as someone else or something else and feel and live the same as you do now, within this same existence or within parallel existences. If you are going to be born in the future again and again as we may have been born in the passed before in higher, lower and parallel existences, then, I believe that to be born the same as you are now, the chances are that you can only be born as yourself and therefore maybe the chances are that you may only be able to be born by your same parents (DNA being an influence) because you, as yourself, are only a part of this one possibility up to that point.
For you to be born again as we may have been born in the passed, this one possibility must be or must have been or must be in the future, exactly the same from the start of that creation of this one possibility every time up to that point to which you are born, to enable you to be born as the same being that you are now. From then on as far as you are concerned, the possibilities are infinite because every choice that is made after you have been born sets up another one of the infinite amount of possibilities that will occur and that they will all come round time and time again at sometime. All the choices that are made from the time you are born to the time you die will also be yet another possibility time and time again. When you think about it, every choice, and that means million of millions of choices, that have been made since the start of this creation that has effected the conditions for you to be born has been the right choice, each time, as far as you are concerned, to enable you, as yourself, to be born. It could be that you live your life over and over again within existences of different sizes levels and different times but always of the same pre possibility and pre choices for you cannot be apart of any other possibility as the person you are now
Death would be the only way it is possible to jump the barriers between existences of size and time and to within other Molecules and size levels and into other possibilities or even into the same possibility.
It seems impossible that all the sequence of events leading up to what is happening now in our own existence could ever happen again but the fact that it has happened at all proves that it is not an impossibility and so it must be a possibility. If you believe in the above theory of limitless time, then the same sequence of events may happen and infinite amount of times in the future as it may have happened an infinite amount of times in the passed.
Now I’m sure you think I’m babbling but it does get you thinking doesn’t it.

THE END…. OR IS IT JUST THE BEGINNING.