Talk:Bubble universe theory

src: rascto.ca

Video Talk:Bubble universe theory

Original version

This article needs a "lede" summarizing exactly what the bubble universe theory is! :) See: Wikipedia:News style. jengod 17:01, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Does anybody think, this article is worth keeping? --Pjacobi 21:23, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

oy this topic is okay with references to string theory and all that membrane stuff, but this person makes many assumptions and soforth (pretty much filled with pseudoscience bulloney) - 1-1

Maps Talk:Bubble universe theory

Replacement version

I've replaced the original article with a more or less sane stubby rewrite. Remove "attention" template (and remove from "pages needing attention") if this version is deemed acceptable. --Christopher Thomas 07:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems to be a good start. Do you think you can elaborate on the connection to the terms "chaotic inflation", "eternal inflation" and "eternal chaotic inflation"? --Pjacobi 11:01, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

I'd need and a bit more more research to see exactly where this article fits into the various inflationary models. What should probably actually happen is that "chaotic inflation" and "eternal inflation" should be folded into cosmic inflation, and the contents of this article should be merged in under the "eternal inflation" heading, if I understand the models correctly. I might take a stab at this some time next week, if nobody else does it. --Christopher Thomas 16:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

src: nu.aeon.co

Hmm. I have a (stupid [?]) theory

I hope this is original :P. I had this idea floating in my head that we are in a zero-sum universe, all energy has its negative force and the net value is Italic textexactlyItalic text zero. Thus it may be assumed that this particular theory states that this universe may be artificially created if someone could manage to seperate out many forces that negate each other and 'sew' them up in an incoherent lump of slowly self-destructing mass of forces (Imagine a soup of equations.). (Imagine a computer crunching away at a soup of equations that finally computes to zero.) The problem is who actually 'sewed' up our one or it spontaneously erupted a la a Natoinal Georaphic issue talking aboyt Einstein and a bubble universe, how and what is processing the soup of forces.

Pesudonym: Lord Hellraiser Acronym of real name: KN That's not stupid, see Inflation for Beginners, JOHN GRIBBINBarbara Shack 13:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Can we rename this version of multiverse

and call it a CAULIFLOWER universe? It seems to look that way, viewed from a few feet away.. As a maths person, my knowledge of physics is limited, but to me you guys (physicists/cosmologists) seem to be talking about things similar to General Relativity but one of the higher dimensional versions coming from string theory, still in some way modeled on a pseudo- Riemannian manifold (one with an indefinite metric) which carries various scalar and vector fields,.. is that about right? Then those fields satisfy various PDEs or variational principles or symmetry conditions, all cobbled together as well as we know how? Could some references on this level be made available? What I wanted to get to is this: PDEs folks nowadays always keep a weather-eye out for WEAK SOLUTIONS.. Often there are those but entropy or other side conditions are imposed to pick out the good ones. Especially in evolution equations such as the UNIVERSE, cauliflower or traditional. The question is are there careful maths treatments of weak solutions for cosmology, especially at BIG-BANG time and anywhere on the margin of the underlying pseudo-Riemannian manifold? Various guest speakers gave negative answers.. One issue here is this: Even if that discussion is done and satisfactory weak formulations of cosmology are found, the underlying manifold should be found as part of the answer not imposed apriori, because its topology, including holes, singularities, etc, is a main question in cosmology. Who knows, this could be fractal, not a manifold at all, with difficulties arising for PDE formulations even if weak, a CANTOR SET cosmological nightmare, to be truthful, not MADE PRETTY (=KO?MO?, MUNDUS) ...

About the diameter (co-moving?) of the Universe @ 56 B L Y, is this a valid science concept (I think probably not).. Skeptiker 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Merger

It seems that the article at Chaotic inflation theory refers to this same phenomenon, and the two articles should be merged. But I don't know which term is more prevalent/appropriate, so I don't know which way to merge the two. Shadypalm88 01:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree they should be merged. Chaotic inflation is the more recent and technical term and returns more google hits (58,000 vs 15,000), so i suggest the bubble universe be merged INTO chaotic inflation.Joncolvin 08:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've merged themBarbara Shack 13:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia