Could our perceived Universe be like a submarine bombarded with "Big Bang Waterbombs"

[Navy2k]

Sorry for the kerbalish Title and to mention, english is not my native language so if you find an error you can keep it

I was always intrigued by the theoretical handstands astronomers take to explain the "evenly" spread background radiation.

My question is what would the background radiation look like if our perceived universe was created with a big bang but the involved mass was only a fraction of the available mass in the whole universe.

At the same time there could be many other local structures in different states of expansion and retraction back to a point where it collapses enough to generate another big bang beyond our visual range.

Like in my title metaphore we would be sitting here on earth and around us would be many big bangs. Just like in a Galaxy where stars go nova expand and collapse elsewhere to build new stars.

It could be broken down i guess to the question what would the background radiation from infinite big bangs infinite away from us look like? Or is this generalization not correct?

It could also explain the accelerating expansion of our perceived universe. Could here also be made a generalization? Would the gravitational forces needed for our expansion fit with infinite mass infinite far away?

Plus it would explain the unsymmetry in the early universe.

Please discuss.

Greetings

Ben

[78stonewobble]

As far as I understand it the cosmic microwave backgrounds differences and similarities are explaines as microscopic effects "blown" up via the process of inflation.

I have no idea how it would look if that process had taken place elsewhere in the "universe" and the big bangs we're more like ... pfft... matter creation events with or without inflation.

Being somewhat oxygen deprived right now... If these lesser big bangs occurred at random in the universe and sufficiently close, then we wouldn't observe the redshifts associated with universal expansion. Matter would be flying left and right and together.

So presumably they would have to happen so far away that they couldn't affect us or be observed anyway?

[*Aqua*]

The background radiation is the leftover heat of the big bang under the assumption this 'explosion' really happened. The further the universe expanded after that the colder it gets.

So if there was less energy involved in the explosion there would be less background radiation.

At the same time there could be many other local structures in different states of expansion and retraction back to a point where it collapses enough to generate another big bang beyond our visual range.

You got the idea of the big bang and what happened after wrong.

The universe came into existence 'after' the 'explosion'. I use quotation marks on these to words because they don't really describe what scientists think what happened. It is unknown if there really was some kind of explosion. 'After' is also the wrong word because the time dimension formed 'after' the big bang. There is no point in asking what happened 'before' because 'before' needs time and there wasn't any. It's a bit mind boggling.

Multiple big bangs are unlikely. We would see the consequences of that (e. g. shock fronts, disturbed space and time).

Edit >Hopefully better explanation: Space and time formed as effects of the big bang. They didn't existed at the event of the big bang. <

Edited March 13, 2014 by *Aqua*

[rkman]

'After' is also the wrong word because the time dimension formed 'after' the big bang.

That is old-school. Nowadays is it acceptable for cosmologists to speculate about there being something like a 'metaverse' in which our universe is only one of many. Something akin to energy, space and time existing independent of our universe. See the recent airing of the first episode of the new "Cosmos" series.

There is no point in asking what happened 'before' because 'before' needs time and there wasn't any.

Even the guy who came up with that (Penrose) now thinks differently about it.

[*Aqua*]

See the recent airing of the first episode of the new "Cosmos" series.

Do you have a link? I don't know of this series.

Even the guy who came up with that (Penrose) now thinks differently about it.

And what does he think now?

I know about the string theory. According to this the big bang is just a collision of two strings and we are living on or in one of the strings. (I don't know how to put it into proper English.)

[Navy2k]

I know about the string theory. According to this the big bang is just a collision of two strings and we are living on or in one of the strings. (I don't know how to put it into proper English.)

I guess what you mean is the theorie that we live in a construct called a brane (derived from membrane) that is endless in it self like the surface of a donut. And if another brane touches ours they would destroy eachother? So different theory and one "layer" above the universe in a whole. (All my theoretical multiple big bangs would happen inside this brane if it exists)

There is no point in asking what happened 'before' because 'before' needs time and there wasn't any

You got the idea of the big bang and what happened after wrong. The universe came into existence 'after' the 'explosion'.

Thats what i want to put to question here. The whole thing of spacetime is expanding with us is a necessity to explain the uniformity of the background radiation as i understand until now. Otherwise there have to be differences in the Background radiation in the direction the big bang happened. (Also i would cross out the word wrong in your vocabulary while talking about theoretical physics )

Multiple big bangs are unlikely. We would see the consequences of that (e. g. shock fronts, disturbed space and time).

I'm stating that the background radiation could be this "shockfront" of all the other big bangs.

Greetings

Ben

[78stonewobble]

I think there was atleast 1 scientist who interpreted certain evidence in the microwave background as evidence for interaction with another "universe", but I think it was largely ignored. I seem to remember it as being as a rather sought interpretation of the data.

[Navy2k]

I think there was atleast 1 scientist who interpreted certain evidence in the microwave background as evidence for interaction with another "universe", but I think it was largely ignored. I seem to remember it as being as a rather sought interpretation of the data.

Do you mean the: CMB cold spot

[78stonewobble]

Do you mean the: CMB cold spot

That's the one. I just wouldn't exactly call it "… the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own."

[rkman]

Do you have a link? I don't know of this series.

COSMOS: A Spacetime odyssey

http://www.fox.com/watch/183733315515

(might not play in your country)

Official Trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBTd9--9VMI

And what does he think now?

Controversial Study Suggests Our Universe is One of Many

http://www.space.com/10522-controversial-study-suggests-universe.html

--

Multiverse/metaverse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Sean Carroll: Distant time and the hint of a multiverse

http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_distant_time_and_the_hint_of_a_multiverse